Floor Statements

Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, we have before us a very well-done bill, and what is before us is good and useful and constructive.

I do have to call attention, however, to a glaring omission caused by the Senate. When our committee considered this measure to merge the insurance funds, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) offered a proposal to establish what we call lifeline banking, a provision to extend to very low-income people the ability to get into the banking system at no cost to themselves, lessening the likelihood that they would go to payday lenders or check-cashing institutions to send excessively expensive money orders.

And we worked this out and there were discussions with the representatives of the bankers, and we arrived at a satisfactory means of paying for it. It is not a very expensive proposal, and it would have done significant social good.

Unfortunately, the Senate simply refused to consider it. The Senate procedure on a number of the bills we have sent over has been arbitrary and the result has been unfortunate. What is

left, it is still a good bill and worth passing; but I did want to call attention to this just to say to some who do not understand this, there are many of us prepared to work constructively with the financial community and the business community to help advance their ability to serve the economy. When they insist that we do that, without paying some attention to the needs of the lowest-income people in this society, they make a great mistake. They are making that mistake here; there is nothing that we can correct.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I was struck by the gentleman from Texas crediting his fellow Republicans for showing up. Because if it were not for the combination of institutional incompetence and ideological extremism that dominates the Republican Party, none of us would have had to be here. So I guess we all deserve recognition as victims of that.

I actually think this motion should have been retitled. It should have been called Subversion of the Rules, not Suspension of the Rules, because that is what is happening. We are being at almost gunpoint, the metaphorical, parliamentary equivalent of gunpoint, being asked to debate under very restrictive measures bills that deserve more.

Let me talk about one, the terrorism risk insurance. I think it is an important bill, and I agree substantively with what the gentleman from Texas said. Unfortunately, the right wingers who dominate this administration and much of the congressional leadership in both Houses do not agree. They tried to kill this thing, until finally, at the overwhelming insistence of people who are involved in the economy of this country said that that would be irresponsible, they did the next best thing. They have forced us to deal with it in a constricted and inappropriate way.

We did take it up in the House, and we had a full markup in our committee, and we voted on it on the floor. In the Senate, and let us praise the rule change that now allows us to tell the truth about what goes on in the Senate, the Senate passed a very restricted version of this. The Senate chairman of the banking committee then refused to appoint conferees.

Interestingly, we are going to have to amend this rule, because the rule, reasonably, said let us take up on suspension the conference report on TRIA. And then the Rules Committee had to be reminded that there is no conference report on TRIA, because the Republican Senate chairman, knowing that he would have been outvoted in the conference, refused to allow one and, instead, individually dictated what would be in it.

So we are going to have to amend it, because if we had a vote on a conference report on TRIA, we would have no TRIA. They would not have a conference. The regular order has been totally subverted. Unfortunately, we have to accommodate it because we are up against a December 31 extension.

By the way, if the House Republican leadership had not delayed consideration of this bill, we could have done it months ago and not been vulnerable to that kind of extortion.

What we have now is a bill that leaves out, for example, the commission on how to deal with terrorism insurance that the families of September

11 have asked for. We will go into that further when we debate it, but the families of September 11 asked for a commission. We included it in the House bill. Chairman Oxley and Chairman Baker accommodated that reasonable request. It is not in the Senate Bill. And because of this outrageously high-handed legislative procedure, we do not have a chance to include it.

An important provision was adopted here in the House, sponsored by the gentlewoman from Florida, to prevent people who are traveling to what some insurance companies think are dangerous areas, like Israel, from being denied life insurance. That is not in the bill. Maybe some people do not like it, but we should have been able to have had a forum in which it could be debated and decided.

Instead, we have the right wing that controls the executive branch and both Houses of Congress grudgingly allowing a bare bones and, I think, inadequate form of extension. It is better than nothing. It is important to the economy, and the gentleman from Texas is right. But here is a combination of ideological extremism and a refusal to recognize the legitimacy of a democratic process here.

As we salute democracy in Iraq, and I am glad we saw it yesterday, I guess I am starting to get jealous of the Iraqis, because as of now there is more democracy being practiced under American auspices in Iraq than the leadership here in the House of Representatives is allowing on the floor of this body.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for just a moment, I want to thank the gentleman for his graciousness on that, and I appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker, if someone had said some of the most fiscally, self-proclaimed, conservative members of the House were going to come to the floor and ask us to spend $100 billion or $200 billion on a nonessential project, people would have said, when pigs fly. Well, that is this bill. Did you see who got up to speak? Everybody who has got a NASA facility. The pork is very much in this bill, but it is flying pork. So this is literally the occasion when pigs fly, at least in the nature of pork, when all of the representatives of the NASA places come up here.

Now, I agree with the gentleman from New York and my friend from Cleveland.

I yield briefly to my friend from Ohio.

The gentleman may not consume pork, but he sure produces it.

The fact is that we are about to take up a continuing resolution that will make severe cuts in many, many important programs here on earth, and we will be told that the problem is the fiscal constraints. Members will lament the fact that we cannot adequately fund health care and environment and transportation and other things, and then we vote for a bill that says, as a binding policy, we are going to send a man to Mars. My friend from Missouri asks me, well, what happens when he gets there? Well, he comes back. That is why it is so expensive.

I agree about what was said about aeronautics; it is so important. I agree with space experimentation, primarily unmanned. But sending human beings to Mars, which this bill unfortunately endorses, is an extravagance; it is a psychological stunt. The amount of scientific gain you get comes from the aeronautics, from the unmanned space, even from some of the manned space in a more limited way. But when I first got here, we were told we had to do the space shuttle because we had to compete with the Soviet Union, and I did not think it was a good idea, the space station, not the space shuttle. Then the Cold War ended, and now we are told we have to keep doing the space station to cooperate with the Soviet Union. If we go a few more years, we will have to do it in memory of the Soviet Union.

There is a determination to spend far beyond any rational principle. I agree with much of what is here, but going to Mars? A country that faces the fiscal problems we face? We are quibbling, we are arguing over how well to protect New Orleans: Do we go to category 3 or category 4? But then in this parallel universe, we are going to spend $200 billion to send men to Mars. Of course, you can tell it is a parallel universe; it is the one no one lives in; it is the one where they are willing to spend money.

So as you are told to accept the tough cuts that the gentleman from Wisconsin is going to outline when you vote for that CR and when you try to tell people back home, ``I am sorry, I could not give you money for health care and for education and for the environment and for transportation,'' remember that you are mortgaging that with this useless piece of flying pork of sending men to Mars.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman. And I have never been happier that it is the Hall of Fame and not NASA that is in Cooperstown.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hard work and the candor of the chairman of the committee. It really is disappointing. We did a good bipartisan effort here, put together a bill. There were some questions about it. It was a comprehensive bill and attacked a number of the issues.

What happened in the Senate was a travesty of the legislative process and a refusal finally by the chairman frankly of the committee to engage us at all. We are left with this Hobson's choice, in the literal sense, that is, no choice at all, that is, we have to pass this bill or else this program expires.

Unfortunately, a number of things were left out. We will hear from the gentlewoman from Florida about her important provision protecting people against unfair discrimination in their travel plans. One of the things that we

will also hear is from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel). He worked hard with the families of 9/11.

Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the Record a packet of correspondence to and from the families. They wanted a commission to study this issue as part of this. They wanted representation. And the families of 9/11, after all, are the people out of whom this whole terrorism response grew, the victimization of their loved ones.

They asked for a commission. We in the House worked with them on a bipartisan basis. We have that commission. The Senate simply blatantly ignored them. And they tried. They appealed to the Senate and they appealed to the White House and they were turned away.

Group life is gone. This is kind of like, remember the old neutron bomb? It killed people and left the buildings standing. We have neutron terrorism insurance. It protects the buildings, but it ignores the people. It is both a travesty of the legislative process, what the Senate has done; and I have to say this, despite the fact that we got good bipartisan corporation here, and there were differences, we had differences where ideology got into play, but unfortunately there is a right wing ideological fundamentalism so entrenched in this Capitol in various places that that is why we do not have the kind of terrorism risk insurance bill we ought to have.

I believe in the market. I believe in the market's function, but we have people who believe in the market when it does not exist. And that is the case in terrorism insurance.

Families of September 11, Inc.,

New York, NY, November 3, 2005.

Hon. Michael G. Oxley,

Chair and Co-Sponsor of the House TRIA Bill, House of

Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, Rayburn

House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Richard Baker,

Co-Sponsor of the House TRIA Bill, House of Representatives,

Committee on Financial Services, Rayburn House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Barney Frank

Ranking Democrat, House of Representatives, Committee on

Financial Services, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representatives Oxley, Frank and Baker: The

undersigned is Chairman of the Board of Families of September

11, Inc. (FOS11). FOS11 is a nonprofit organization founded

in October 2001 by families of those who died in the

September 11 terrorist attacks. The FOS11 mission is to raise

awareness about the effects of terrorism and public trauma

and to champion domestic and international policies that

prevent, protect against, and respond to terrorist acts. Our

members (over 2,000) reside in 48 states and 20 countries.

Soon after its founding FOS11 began analyzing and

responding to issues raised by the Air Transportation Safety

and System Security Act (the Act), of which the September

11th Victims Compensation Fund of 2001 (the Fund) forms a

part, and subsequent legislation. In June of this year FOS11

submitted to the Justice Department its Final Report on the

Fund, an Executive Summary of which was placed in the

Congressional Record. In that report FOS11 expresses deep

concern about the wide swath of immunity granted by the Act

and subsequent legislation to public and private entities for

the consequences of the September 11 attacks. We observe that

the deterrent goals of our American compensation system--

imposing the cost of harmful acts on those who could and

should have, but did not, prevent them--were not achieved.

Nor could they have been. The reason. The insurance industry

had not (understandably) appreciated and analyzed the

terrorist exploitable vulnerabilities of its insureds and the

magnitude of the exposures and built the reserves and

provided the limits necessary to pay the losses that

resulted.

The FOS11 Final Report on the Fund concludes by urging

Congress to:

a. use the perspectives of time and experience in

implementation of the Victim Compensation Fund to consider

carefully issues it was forced to address hastily in the

immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11,

2001;

b. assess how well the rules adopted in 2002 to implement

the legislation met Congressional intent;

c. consider the incentives and disincentives to reducing

the risks of terrorist attacks implicit in the legislation;

and

d. fashion legislation that will reduce those risks and

ensure that victims of future terrorist attacks and their

families are made whole.

Although FOS11 believes that the Terrorism Risk Insurance

Act (TRIA) is not the long term solution to deterring and, if

deterrence fails, paying for future terrorist losses, it does

believe that it is a necessary bridge to comprehensive

forward looking legislation that will allow the insurance

industry to play the vital role of providing remedies to the

casualties of future terrorist attacks and, through risk

assessments and premium allocations, a safer America.

FOS11 joins the Defense Research Institute in its support

of legislation that (1) extends TRIA until December 31, 2007,

to ensure an orderly transition to a long term solution to

the terrorism risk insurance questions and (2) provides for a

Presidential Working Group or Congressional Commission to

develop a viable and solvent program to succeed TRIA.

The unique perspective of FOS11 equips it well to

participate in the creation of solutions to the complex

accountability, responsibility, remedies and related

prevention issues raised by the continuing threat of

terrorist acts and the vital role insurance can (must) play

in these solutions. We ask that FOS11 be a participant in

this crucial debate.

Very truly yours,

Donald W. Goodrich,

Chairman of the Board.

Mr. Speaker, I am struck by the extent to which the right wing seems not to understand how unpopular their agenda is. It is their inability to get a majority for it that keeps us here so many days after we should have gone.

It is also interesting to watch them try to deny the very, very deep conservatism of the nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Alito. They are hiding his views on abortion. Recently, in the Boston Globe, an article by Kenneth Starr and Ronald Cass tried to explain away one of the most astounding examples of his extreme conservatism: his opposition to the basic principle of one man, one vote as articulated by the Warren Court. And given the difficulty of trying to get someone confirmed who has views that extreme, these two advocates tried to explain it away by claiming it was all about gerrymandering and proportional representation.

Fortunately, Professor Michael Tolley of Northeastern University wrote a very good letter exposing the inaccuracy of this attempted defense of Judge Alito and reaffirming that in fact what was involved in his 1985 statement was an objection to that basic principle of democracy articulated by the Warren Court, that it should be one man, one vote.

The following are the inaccurate article and the correction:

Alito's Sticky Thicket

(By Kenneth W. Starr and Ronald A. Cass)

A Political sidebar that made surprising news the last few

weeks is a phrase in a 1986 job application from now-Judge

Sam Alito questioning the Warren Court's reappointment

decisions. That tidbit sent shock waves through the political

and pundit classes.

It shouldn't have. Justice-to-be Alito's statement wasn't

an attack on equality, voting rights, or protecting victims

of racial discrimination. It was a simple observation that a

liberal court created a doctrine that, however salutary, has

significant problems.

Americans have long embraced the idea of equality from

``all men are created equal'' forward. Equality did not mean

identical political influence in every respect. Yet the past

40 years have seen repeated judicial efforts to prescribe

something that looks like

identical influence for voters. Prior to 1962, the Supreme

Court rejected efforts to draw the judiciary into the

``political thicket'' of apportionment. That changed with

Baker v. Carr, when the court decreed that states could not

depart too far from the principle of ``one-man, one-vote'' in

allocating legislative representatives. Since then, the

problem has been figuring, out what is too far.

Politicians often attempt to allocate political

representation in ways that both dramatically increase and

decrease the influence of citizens' votes. But the Framers

designed checks and balances to prevent any group from

dominating another permanently or from taking property or

liberty to serve prejudice or politics. Integral was a

division of government power reflecting different influences,

some defined by historical boundaries, others by more local

populations. The Constitution does not sweepingly embrace one

theory of political representation but instead allocates

power in several disparate ways.

Useful as ``one-person, one-vote'' is, it isn't a universal

directive. Consider the Senate. The Constitution decrees that

each state has two senators, regardless of the state's

population or acreage. In contrast, the House of

Representatives is based mostly on population, except for the

requirement that each state have at least one representative.

Making House districts roughly equal has been a source of

dispute for 200 years. In the early 1800s, Elbridge Gerry

redistricted Massachusetts to help his political allies,

creating one district shaped like a salamander--thus giving

birth to the term ``Gerrymander.''

After Baker v. Carr, the courts have insisted on greater

degrees of mathematical equivalence in votes across

districts. Since then, the problems associated with

apportionment have grown. The Supreme Court rejected a plan

with less than seven-10ths of one percent difference among

districts. Courts have repeatedly invalidated efforts to draw

lines between districts without totally disrupting

traditionally established communities. At times the result

has been to divide neighborhoods.

Added attention to other aspects of the reapportionment

process, encompassing equality along racial and ethnic lines

as well as across geographic districts, spawned further

opportunities for realigning political districts to suit

political interests rather than historical ones. Although

boundary adjustments probably have increased minority

representation in Congress, the jurisprudence of

reapportionment has become needlessly complex and largely

ineffective. The court has permitted a realignment of

political power to advantage incumbents, create more safe

districts, and facilitate greater division among elected

representatives who no longer have to appeal to swing voters.

After fragments on the standards on racial gerrymandering,

the court came up with no realistic way to assess what

constitutes political gerrymandering. As Justice O'Connor

said in Davis v. Bandemer in 1986--roughly contemporaneous

with Judge Alito's statement--the court's effort to identify

political gerrymandering was ``flawed from its inception.''

Justice O'Connor charged that the court's decisions have been

``contrary to the intent of [the] Framers and to the

traditions of this Republic.''

No one should be alarmed that Alito--like many other

justices--found some aspect of the court's reapportionment

decisions unfortunate. His position should reassure us that,

as a justice, he will be open to seeing the flaws as well as

the virtues of constitutional decision-making by judges. That

is an important virtue in a Supreme Court justice.

Alito's Views and O'Connor's

(By Michael Tolley)

Be alarmed when two partisan advocates--Kenneth W. Starr

and Ronald A. Cass--say ``no one should be alarmed''

(``Alito's sticky thicket,'' op ed, Dec. 11). Their attempt

to defend Judge Samuel Alito's disagreement with the Warren

Court's reapportionment decisions by linking his position to

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's views fails for two reasons:

The two quotes they rely on in Davis v. Bandemer (1986)

express O'Connor's view on whether the 14th Amendment's equal

protection clause requires the principle of ``proportional

representation,'' not the principle of fundamental voting

equality--one person, one vote. Second, Baker v. Carr (1962)

and Reynolds v. Sims (1964), two of the landmark Warren Court

decisions on reapportionment that Alito disagreed with, are

actually treated favorably in O'Connor's concurring opinion

in Davis v. Bandemer.

O'Connor was careful to distinguish the Supreme Court's

legitimate concern about racial gerrymandering from partisan

gerrymandering at issue in Davis v. Bandemer. Only by

misreading O'Connor's opinion can Starr and Cass bring

Alito's views in line with moderate justice he has been

nominated to replace.

Does Alito believe, like O'Connor, in the principle of

``one person, one vote''? Or is he against the use of federal

judicial power to remedy discrimination resulting from

malapportioned legislative districts? The difference between

disagreeing with the extension of the principle ``on person,

one vote'' to issues such as partisan gerrymandering and

disagreeing with the principle of ``one person, one vote'' is

the difference between a moderate and someone out of the

judicial mainstream.

Mr. Speaker, almost exactly 38 years ago, as I was beginning my work as the Executive Assistant to newly elected Boston Mayor Kevin White, who was to take office on January 1. I watched as he went through a very careful and thoughtful process of selecting high officials for his new administration. One of the most important jobs in any municipal government is that of Public Works Commissioner--no city official in Boston has more of an impact on the quality of life of the people who live there. It is a difficult and demanding job, especially in a city like Boston that is one of the oldest in the country and has both the benefits and defects of great age.

There were several very highly qualified applicants for the position of Public Works Commissioner. I remember in particular an individual who had extremely high academic qualifications, and at the time I was myself impressed by the extent to which this individual would bring a full understanding of modern technology to the job. The Mayor was also impressed with him, but he was even more impressed with a--then--young official from a nearby town, who had been Public Works Commissioner in that town. His name was Joseph Casazza. One of the things about Kevin White that made him a great leader was the seriousness with which he approached the appointment of high officials; I was struck also by his good judgment in deciding who would best fit, and in his understanding of the importance of putting together a balanced team where people would have different strengths, in some cases offsetting what might be weaknesses in others.

One result of this process was his selection of Joe Casazza, and it is a tribute to Kevin White's judgment that as Joe Casazza now retires, after 37 years in this very difficult job as Public Works Commissioner of Boston, he is widely recognized for the superb public service he has provided the people of the City.

Mr. Speaker, too often people denigrate those who have chosen to work in the public sector. Knowing Joe Casazza as I do, and having watched him over the years, I have no doubt that he could have been an extraordinarily successful private sector employee, earning far more over his lifetime than he did as the Public Works Commissioner. But his dedication to the well being of his fellow citizens was such that he stayed in the public sector for his entire working career and it is not at all surprising that his understandable decision to retire is greeted with deep regret by those of us who have benefited from his service.

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my words of praise to Joe Casazza--an extraordinary man who has had an extraordinary career in the public service.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most thoughtful Members to join us in recent years is the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) who as a former Mayor of Kansas City makes very significant contributions to the work of our Committee on Financial Services, which has jurisdiction over urban affairs.

The gentleman from Missouri is also a civil rights leader, and as a minister is very much in the tradition of those in that profession who have provided moral leadership in the long and continuing fight against racism and its effects. Recently, in the Kansas City, Missouri newspaper, The Call, in the issue for the week of December 9th-December 15th, our colleague laid out in a very persuasive and reasoned fashion the objections to the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court that arise from his record on civil rights. I believe that this very useful analysis makes a significant contribution to the national debate on this question and I ask that it be printed here.

[From The Call, Dec. 9-15, 2005]

Alito: A Threat To Civil Rights

(By Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II, 5th Congressional District)

Kansas City, MO.--In a almost every news stqryabout

President Bush's latest Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito,

the subject of Roe v. Wade, the Court's 1973 decision

guaranteeing women the right to choose to have abortions has

been the focus. Unfortunately, minorities are not receiving

``much information on Alito's awful'' attitudes on issues of

civil rights. In fact, a November 14 edition Newsweek, which

carned a seven page story on Alito, did not bother to discuss

civil rights.

One case that sheds badly needed light on Alito disgraceful

civil rights record involved Beryl Bray; an Africa American

housekeeping, manager at a Park Ridge, N.J. Marriott Hotel.

Ms. Bray appealed to a trio of federal judge's that she had

been turned down on a promotion in the Marriott operation

because she'' was black. Two judges wrote that enough

evidence had been presented to, justify a jury trial. You

guessed it, Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented.

He downplayed the whole matter by writing that the hotel

had simply made ``minor-inconsistencies'' in how they handled

hirings; Alito went further in, saying that it would be

unfair to allow ``disgruntled employees to impose the cost of

trial of employers who, although they have not acted with the

intent to discriminate, may have treated their employees

unfairly.''

The two judges with a different view of the case felt so

strongly about their evidence that they broke. With tradition

and actually criticized Alito's written opinion. According to

this fellow judges in Bray v. Marriott hotels, Alito's

position would have ``eviscerated'' legal protection under

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The majority said that

Alito's position would protect employers from suit even in

situation where ``the employer's belief that it had selected

the ``best'' candidate ``was the result of conscious racial

bias.'''

In a 2001 racial discrimination case, Alito, cast the

deciding vote and wrote the opinion in a 2-1 ruling that

rejected claims by African American defendant who had been

convicted of feloy murder by an all-white jury from which

black jurors had been impermissible struck because of their

race.

The full Third Circuit reversed this ruling, and the

majority specifically criticized Alito for having compared

statistical evidence about the prosecution's exclusion of

blacks from juries in capital cases to an explanation of why

a disproportionate number of recent U.S. Presidents have been

left-handed: Judge Dolores Slovitar, in Riley v. Taylor wrote

that Alito overlooked the obvious fact that there is no

provision in the Constitution that protects persons from

discrimination based on whether they are right handed or

left-handed. To compare the striking of jurors based their

race is to minimize the history of discrimination against

prospective, black jurors and black defendants.

My colleague, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, a former

head of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and

a distinguished constitutional scholar in her own right, told

me that Alito, in her opinion is dangerous to civil rights.

Ms. Norton has studied Alito's, opinions and has led the

Congressional Black Caucus in its opposition to the extremely

conservative judge. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-

Mass.) has stated through a spokeswoman that: ??? when it

comes down to it, he's on the wrong side of civil rights.'' I

strongly agree with the Senator. I reviewing the opinions of

Alito, even with my law laity status, I have concluded beyond

logical challenge, that this nominee has repeatedly made

difficult for those claiming to have been victims of

discrimination to prove it or to even get a trial.

Should Alito receive Senate confirmation, he will replace

retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who often cast the

critical swing vote that protected civil rights. Alito's

addition to the Court means that it will clearly move to the

right. With affirmative action, Voting Rights Act

reauthorization and other issues likely to be considered by

the Supreme Court, it would behoove minorities and people of

good will to seek additional information, should they desire

such, and in the opinion of the 60's soul group Charles

Wright and the Watts 103 Street Rhythm Band, ``Express

Yourself!''

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

Mr. Speaker, we agree that this is a useful piece of legislation. I am one who believes in appropriate regulation. And if you believe in appropriate regulation, you should be committed to doing away with inappropriate regulation. When you overregulate, when you put too much of a burden on people who should not have the burden, you undercut the case for those restrictions where they should apply. Clearly, when you talk about housing authorities, you are talking about entities that differ greatly; and this is one of those cases where to quote, I guess Marx I am afraid, ``Quantity can become quality.'' Differences in size can become so important that they become difference in kind.

When you talk of the New York Public Housing Authority or the Los Angeles Public Housing Authority and you are talking about some of the very small public housing authorities, you are talking about very different entities, and you ought not try to put them all under one. So we appreciate the initiative that came on the other side from those who wanted to make this more flexible.

We did have some concerns. By ``we'' I did mean myself and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who chairs the housing subcommittee, because we did not want to have tenants who, after all, are human beings in large authorities as well as small to be somehow inadvertently disadvantaged. So we appreciate the fact that the majority is willing to negotiate with us, and I always say that with trepidation lest my having acknowledged that we worked out something bipartisan in our committee and transformed something routine into an ideological war. But I would assure people that the negotiations here were of a fairly calm level.

What we did, essentially, was to maintain the statutory role for resident advisory boards. They are advisory, and obviously it is important to watch housing authorities that are small and talk to the people who live there.

Secondly, we left in a requirement that they have to have a public hearing at least once a year to talk about their objectives. I think these are beneficial. Finally, we wanted to make clear that they did have to self-certify that they were meeting the civil rights and fair housing laws.

No one has to investigate them, but leaving that out, leaving that requirement itself out of the equation, the vast majority of housing authorities are well-intentioned, and you do not volunteer to be on a housing authority unless you really care about the people who are there. The people who run the small housing authorities are very often very civic-minded people, people who care about the poor. Very rarely are the people who run these authorities getting back any kind of compensation, enough to make up for the time. But we want to make sure that we did not send the wrong message.

So with those three fairly minor modifications that the majority accepted, this is a fairly useful bill, and we hope that it is passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself some additional time to simply say, I appreciate what the gentleman from Texas said in closing which is to focus on the tenants.

I think it is important that we continue to pay attention to housing authorities. Too often, people slip into the mistake of equating homeownership with homes. Homeownership is very important, yes, to the sense that people are economically and other ways able to own homes, that is a good thing. But a large number of low-income people, through a variety of reasons, economic and others, are not going to own homes, and we ought to be clear that it is the right of people to a home that we want to work for or at least the ability of people to have a decent home.

In many cases, that will be homeownership. But in some cases, it will not be, and we want to make it very clear, as far as the public sector is concerned, we ought to have the same obligation to help people make the most out of their home, whether they are tenants or owners. This is an example of how we do that.

So I thank the gentleman.

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

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

I know that our colleague from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) was en route here, and that is appropriate because he has been a major proponent of this bill. He and I have worked together on it.

What we do here is to frankly allow cities, municipalities, to do more to clean up brownfield sites. Surprisingly, initially we ran into some jurisdictional objections, I think based on turf, I guess, in this case, almost literally on turf, from some people who were kind of proponents of the EPA's role there.

I should make it very clear, to the extent that the Environmental Protection Agency can clean up these sites, wonderful. Mayors are not asking for the right to take funds for which they have a large number of demand and divert them into projects that would be otherwise done by the EPA, but there are occasions where we know the EPA does not have the money it ought to have.

I regret the fact that Congress earlier, the majority then in control, decided to end the taxation that we levied on the oil companies to provide funds for EPA. EPA has not got enough money, and we do not give it enough in the appropriations process. So I regret that, and I want to do all that I can to include it, but I do not want to tell a city because we have not given enough money to the EPA that the city is precluded from going forward cleaning up their brownfields.

I also want to talk a little bit about the public sector/private sector issue here. We hear a lot about the value of the private sector, and it is often put in the context of the private sector versus the public sector, with people being critical of the public sector. There are times when the public sector and elements of it do not do well. There are times when the private sector does not, but understand what we are talking about here.

Brownfields are overwhelmingly the product of private sector activity. Brownfields is a somewhat neutral term for ugly, messy stuff, pollutants, chemicals and other things that I guess turn the green grass brown, that turn the earth into an unpleasant situation.

The private sector companies that did that were not bad people. Most of them, a couple of bad people sneak in everywhere, but they really believed that it was their job to do it. They were producing various goods, and the processes used to produce various goods will sometimes produce pollutants.

What we have here with brownfields are situations overwhelmingly where a private sector entity made money by producing certain goods and then went out of business, moved away, moved overseas and left behind quite literally a physical problem in the city. What we are saying here is we are recognizing that the public sector has to step in and clean that up.

In some cases, under environmental law, we try to get private sector, responsible parties, to contribute, but

sometimes, they are not around to do that. They have not got the money. They are just not there. Let us be clear. This is a recognition of the need for a well-funded public sector operation to literally clean up the messes left behind by the private sector. This is an example in my mind of how in a rational society seeking the right quality of life, public and private sectors each will have an important role, and they will be cooperative.

I regret that fact that because we had a rule about no new programs that the pilot projects that would have allowed the Secretary of HUD to make some grants to explicitly combine cleaning up the brownfields with subsequent economic development on that cleaned-up site, that that was stricken from the bill. I know the gentleman from California has said, and I appreciate this, that he and I will continue to push for that. I hope that next year we may get that authorized as a separate bill.

What we are doing here is to free up any restrictions on the community development block grant program. One problem in the past was that if cities wanted to use their CDBG funds, they had to do it through a program called section 108 which required them to kind of roll their CDBG funds for many years. This allows them more flexibility. It allows us if we can get some appropriations into this to give them some money so they can also get things cleaned up.

It is, as I said, arming the mayors and local officials with a new set of tools to take areas of their city that have been despoiled by past private sector practices and make them available for the kinds of uses that will help enhance the quality of life, the economic and other kinds of activities in the city.

I just want to pay tribute here to the mayor of the city of New Bedford, Fred Kalisz, a long-serving mayor in the largest city in my district, who is leaving office in a few weeks. It was his advocacy to a great extent that called this issue to my attention, and he will be leaving, but I am very pleased that, as he leaves, we will be passing, and I hope soon the President will sign into law a bill that responds to one of the needs that he identified

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute, and I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio making that point. Yes, a great many of these activities, probably most of them, were legal at the time. And I think that is an important point.

Society's mores change and customs change; and we are talking about, in many cases, businesses and, in some cases, government with waste disposal that were doing things entirely legal at the time, not fully cognizant of the consequences; and it sometimes falls to later generations literally to clean up.

These things were often things that were legal, not done by bad people, but people who were following the rules at the time; and I think it is fashionable to lament the deterioration of society all the time. This is an example, the whole brownfields approach of higher standards, of the decision of society today not only not to accept some of the things that used to happen but literally to clean them up.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

The gentlewoman from New York reminded me that a lot of these things that are very broadly supported require money. And just as we have seen a cutting off of funding of the EPA, this administration, sadly, has been trying to cut back the funds for the brownfields program.

And indeed I have a rare opportunity in which I can congratulate the Appropriations Committee under the control of the majority because they had the good sense to reject a proposal by this administration to rescind this coming year's money for the brownfields program because they said they needed to deal with it to offset the problems in Katrina.

So this strong support for this brownfields program comes at a very good time, because it is a strong voice of support, I believe on a bipartisan basis, from the Appropriations Committee in repudiating that very ill-thought-out effort by the administration to rescind all of its money.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I would just say that they have one other advantage: they are sufficiently uncomplicated to get the United States Senate to act on them.

Mr. Speaker, under the assumption that the House would have adjourned for the year by Tuesday, December 6, I accepted a very important speaking engagement for that evening in Massachusetts. The event was the installation of a constituent, David Wluka, as President for the year of the Massachusetts Association of Realtors, an important organization with which I have worked closely on the issue of housing, which is one of those that is most important to me in my role on the Committee on Financial Services. My presence at this event had been advertised by the Realtors, and so when suspension votes were scheduled for Tuesday night, I made this one of those rare occasions when I missed votes in order to carry out a responsibility in my district. All three of the votes taken were unanimous, so my absence obviously had no impact on the outcome. But I did want to make sure that my strong support for all three of those resolutions was noted. This is particularly true with H. Res. 438, which urged UN member states to cease their one-sided and unfair condemnations of Israel. The lack of balance in the UN with regard to the Middle East peace process has in fact been an obstacle to the success of that process, by increasing the fears of many in Israel that they will be unfairly treated. As a strong supporter of the ongoing peace process in the Middle East, I believe this resolution was an important one and I hope that the members of the UN will heed it.

Similarly, the resolution honoring the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin is another important affirmation of the great value we place on the peace process. Those who murdered this great man sought to murder the process of peace, and it is important for us to make it clear that they did not succeed in that latter effort, although they tragically did succeed in killing one of the great leaders of our time. Yitzhak Rabin's courageous efforts for peace, grounded in the heroic efforts he made during his lifetime to advance Israel's security, deserve not simply this commendation, but serious efforts to bring to fruition what he worked so hard to achieve.

Finally, it is entirely appropriate that our colleague, the gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos, lead the House in recognizing the Fiftieth Anniversary of the extraordinarily brave, through tragic, effort by the Hungarian people to win their freedom from the brutal dictatorship imposed on them by the Soviet Union. While this ended badly with the deaths of so many brave people, it was an affirmation that the human drive for freedom cannot easily be snuffed out, and served as an extraordinary example for the later, successful efforts to break the tyrannical Soviet empire.

Mr. Speaker, when I was a Member of the Massachusetts Legislature in 1973, I introduced legislation to protect gay and lesbian people against discrimination. To the surprise of many--myself included--one of the strongest champions of that bill turned out to be a Republican State Senator from a socially conservative part of Massachusetts, Robert A. Hall. As he describes in the attached article, he had not thought much about this before, but when he listened with an open mind to the issues involved, he became a supporter. When he found that he was in fact the only one willing to be the floor manager for the bill on the floor of the Massachusetts Senate, he took that on, in the face of a great deal of political wisdom that said he was making a mistake. As he noted, he went on to a very successful further career.

Bob Hall's article in the Madison, Capital Times continues his work in defending fairness. His arguments on the marriage issue seem to me irrefutable, and they come with great credibility given his background and his current set of views. Since it is apparently the intention of the Republican leadership once again to bring a Constitutional amendment before the House that would prevent States from making their own decisions with regard to same-sex marriage, I think it is very relevant that Mr. Hall's persuasive argument be printed here.

[From the Capital Times, Dec. 1, 2005]

Anti-Gay Bill Won't Help Your Marriage

(By Robert A. Hall)

I'm opposed to a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay

marriage, now being considered by the Wisconsin Legislature.

Oh, I know, I'm an unlikely champion of gay rights. I'm a

Marine Vietnam vet who has deep regrets about that war--

mostly I regret that we didn't kill twice as many of those

totalitarian murderers. I hope we do better in Iraq.

I believe the ``out-now crowd'' are racists who think the

Iraqis are too inferior to deserve democracy. Or they don't

care, as long as America is defeated and George Bush

embarrassed.

I worked hard to defeat John Kerry last November, and will

do so again, if he runs.

And I'm a death penalty advocate who thinks we should run

it like a barbershop--two chairs, no waiting.

As a member of the Massachusetts Senate, I regularly voted

against increasing the state budget more than any other

senator.

And don't get me started on guns. I'm not for mandatory

concealed carry, but I do think fondly of how polite folks

were in the days when gentlemen wore swords.

Living in Madison, I feel a certain kinship with the

Israeli ambassador to Baghdad. While I think of myself as a

centrist Republican with a libertarian bent, to the average

Progressive Dane voter, I'm a fascist pig.

So how did I become a supporter of gay rights?

In 1973, Massachusetts State Rep. Barney Frank had filed

bills prohibiting employment and housing discrimination on

the basis of sexual orientation.

The bills came before a committee on which I served. There

were a lot of jokes and nudging going on--this was the early

'70s. Appearing to testify was a bright and charming woman,

Elaine Nobel, who would later serve as a state

representative herself. Elaine convinced me that

supporting Barney's bills was the right thing to do. I

told the chairman, Sen. Allen McKinnon, to record me in

favor of them.

The bills received a favorable report--but no one in the

committee's Democratic majority was willing to carry (be

floor manager) for them. So, my back up, I volunteered.

The Republican floor leader had a minor stroke when he

learned I was carrying gay rights bills. He had only seven

Republicans out of 40 senators. I was 27, single and holding

a seat I'd won by nine votes out of 60,000 cast. The common

wisdom was that I was a one-term wonder who caught the

incumbent senator vulnerable but couldn't be re-elected.

I suspect that I may have been the first legislator in the

country to speak for gay rights on the floor of a state

legislature. McKinnon spoke for the bills after me. On the

roll call, only six senators voted in favor--McKinnon, four

other Democrats and myself. And the bills were dead that

year.

But I won the next election by 10,000 votes, carrying every

city and town in my working-class Democratic district. More

legislators decided that supporting anti-discrimination was a

safe thing to do. Today, it's the law in Massachusetts--which

strangely doesn't seem to have collapsed because of it or

because of the gay marriage decision there last year.

Trust me, no true heterosexual wakes up and thinks, hey,

I'm really angry with my partner. I think I'll try dating

someone from my own gender from now on.

So who is destroying traditional marriage in America?

How about men--and increasingly women--abusing their

spouses? How about the heterosexual trend toward infidelity,

led by the example of our highest elected leaders? How about

men fathering and then abandoning children to poverty and

state support? How about a large number of straight people

deciding serial marriage and divorce is a cool lifestyle?

Doing something about those trends would really protect

marriage.

Mr. Speaker, the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), is on his way over. He has taken the lead for us on this bill.

I would just ask at this point unanimous consent for me to turn over to him the management of our time when he arrives.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to which my response is, ``Better late than never.'' I wish we would have done this earlier. We have known for some time the deadline was coming. I appreciate the efforts of the chairman of the committee to get the attention of the House to this bill. We passed it in committee some time ago before the break. It frankly could have come to the floor before that.

I say that because I am pleased with this bill in general. I think it is useful that we are producing it. And there are differences between this bill and the one passed by the Senate, and we do need some time to work them out.

None of them is of enormous difficulty, it seems to me, they all have a similar capacity, but it would have been better if we had done this earlier.

Having said that, I want to stress what is so important about this bill to me, and it is it establishes or maintains the principle that we will try to minimize the extent to which terrorists influence decisions that we make here in America. I do not regard this as a favor to the insurance companies. Frankly, terrorism insurance would, I believe, not exist if it were not for this bill or, if it did exist, it would be at very high premiums. The insurance industry would have the option either of walking away from offering this or of charging high premiums. I do not think the insurance industry would be greatly disadvantaged.

The losers, if we do not reenact terrorism risk insurance, are people who want to build and particularly in those cities that are seen as potential targets of terrorism. We have been told by people who want to do large commercial buildings, very important to the big cities of this country, to the areas that would be the targets of terrorism, that they would not be able to get loans that are necessary obviously to build if they are not fully insured. Lenders are telling us, yes, we cannot now lend large amounts of money, tens, hundreds of millions of dollars to a building that might be at risk from terrorism and be uninsured against that risk.

I think we ought to have a responsible insurance system so that where we can minimize risk we can give people an incentive to be responsible in dealing with them. I do not think it is

good public policy to say to people who want to build in New York or Chicago or Los Angeles or here in Washington, D.C., There are terrorists out there and they want to blow things up and you will bear that financial responsibility; that is up to you. That is unfair to the cities, and it gives the terrorists leverage over our economy.

So this is a bill which, in my mind, is not for benefit of the insurers but for the insured, and it is for the benefit of the insured so that we can go forward with the development of our economy.

Indeed, there is one issue here regarding the World Trade Center that we have not yet fully resolved, and I appreciate the chairman showing some interest in this. We were asked, both of us, by Members from the New York area about some provisions to deal with the possibility that the World Trade Center reconstruction will take too long. Frankly, those in charge in New York did not come to us until very late in the process, and it was not possible to accommodate something of that complexity now. I hope we do not rule it out for the future, but if they had come to us earlier, we might have been able to deal with it somewhat differently, but that illustrates the point.

This is a bill to make sure that economic activity in our biggest cities can go on uninterrupted, and the alternative is to let the terrorists put a terrorist tax on building large buildings in our big cities, and we should not allow that.

Let me just say, finally, I want to acknowledge, and my friend from Pennsylvania is here and will be taking this over, but this has been a cooperative effort with the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) has done a lot.

Last point. Some of the consumer groups have raised what I think are misguided objections here. I do not see that this, in any way, impinges on the consumers negatively, but thanks to the gentlewoman from Florida, who will be speaking later, it has a very important proconsumer piece, and I appreciate the chairman's agreeing to add it, that protects Americans from arbitrary treatment if they are traveling to certain parts of the world.

So I am very supportive of this, and I would now turn over the management of the time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the good work that was done by members of the subcommittee, and I am going to vote for the bill in recognition of the very good efforts. I believe the chairman, operating within the constraints that he had to operate within, did a reasonable job. I very much agree with the gentlewoman from Michigan who lamented some of the decisions that were made with regard to HUD, and I appreciate the work that has been done by my colleague from Massachusetts in a number of areas.

Just briefly, I want to comment on one subject, and that is the question of earmarks in transportation. The Governor of my State put out a transportation plan for the entire State earlier this year. The only two highway projects for the entire region of the State in southeastern Massachusetts that several of us represent came because our colleagues in the committees did what we asked and earmarked some funding.

That is, not only were those earmarks very important for the local areas, but the State then adopted them as their only projects. So for people who think that earmarks somehow are some excrescence imposed from without, in my judgment, they often reflect better the local priorities; and one of the ones where I have gotten some help from the ranking member and others is to create the first handicapped-accessible commuter rail station on an important commuter route going into Boston from the west. I make no apologies for that earmark.

Unfortunately, this subcommittee, however, had to operate within the constraints of a terrible budget, and while they did the best they could, with one exception, I would join the gentleman from Michigan in regretting the choice that was made about the voucher funding formula; they did not, I think, take the right choice there. They adopted a formula that locks into the past, and let me predict now that Members, once again, are going to start hearing from their local communities as the year goes on about problems with vouchers, about the waiting list being too long, about people being upset; and it is probably because of what we have been coerced into doing here.

The other problem, though, is that in some cases we simply have too little money for the programs. Community Development Block Grants is cut I am told about 9 percent, $362 million. That is a very important program. It is not the fault of the subcommittee. They have been given an allocation. Well, I take it back. It is not the fault of those members of the subcommittee that did not vote for the budget. Members of the subcommittee that voted for the budget I think are hard-pressed to complain about what it did to their allocation. That is a self- inflicted wound.

But we ought to be clear that as a result of the spending constraints, I take it back, not spending constraints, the misallocated priorities, because there is certainly plenty of money being spent elsewhere in this budget that need not have been spent; but because of these terrible priorities, Community Development Block Grants gets about a 9 percent cut, and there is not much money for brownfields.

Hope VI is a very important program. Three years ago it was at $574 million. Today it is at $100 million because we have an administration ideologically opposed to it, despite an overwhelming bipartisan consensus that it is a good way to deal with housing.

Home funds, one of the few sources left now for construction, is cut further.

So I understand that the subcommittee did a good job within the constraints that they were given, although some of them gave themselves those constraints, but the consequence of these spending priorities of this Congress is underfunding of several important housing and community development priorities.

Mr. Speaker, I am confused. When I came here, I was told that the Republicans had put the Murtha resolution on for debate, and then I saw what they put on. I was just wondering and I have a question where they got this. Did they, by any chance, get it from CBS and Dan Rather?

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

Mr. Speaker, along with the chairman, I have a sense of deja vu. A couple of years ago we agreed, the chairman and I and members of our committee, to support the efforts of our former colleague from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, our current colleague from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), to reform the flood insurance program. We made substantial progress. We did not get everything we wanted; there was some resistance.

Then came Katrina, and suddenly the point we were making about the need both to compensate people but also to be environmentally and fiscally responsible in what we promised became somewhat relevant. Our committee had a good mark-up earlier this week and passed out a bill, not a perfect bill from any one standpoint, but which would continue the process of reforms along with the money. And then the Senate, as it did last time, showed a certain reluctance to go along with the reforms. They sent us a bill which is simply the additional money.

The additional money is needed and the additional money is to compensate people who have already been flooded, so there is no necessary connection between that and going forward. I, therefore, did not object to the request, and I hope we will vote the money that has been asked to compensate the people already hurt.

But it is also important that we reform the program. I appreciate the commitment which the gentleman from Ohio has freely given the House, that we are both going to work hard to try to bring the reform package up early next year.

So we will acknowledge the importance of getting the money in the hands of the people who need it, and I will be yielding to some of my colleagues from the area; but we do want to note that we will go forward with the money now, but we have not lost our interest in further reforming the program; and we will be back on the floor I hope, and I know the gentleman from Ohio will be working diligently on that in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to impose on the House's time except we are killing time anyway while you try to figure out what you are going to do with that foolish resolution of yours.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), who has been at the center of the effort to deal with this tragedy. I will say as the ranking member on our side on the committee, he has been constantly in touch with us and has advised us and impressed us on the importance of action, and I am very grateful for his willingness to work with us in the midst of all the stress that has accrued to his district.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman I agree with him this is a lost opportunity, but like the book ``I Lost It At The Movies,'' we lost it at the Senate. So we are doing the best we can.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who has worked harder in the aftermath of this than I have ever seen any Member work in trying to deal with the desperate situation imposed on the people he represents.

Mr. Speaker, for my remaining 30 seconds, I want to send a message to FEMA.

The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon) has called to our attention a delay on the part of FEMA in telling people what elevations are required for new construction or replacement construction in the flooded areas. Until they have those elevations, they cannot proceed with the construction, and the gentleman told me we have been told there is a delay of perhaps up to 2 years. That is clearly unacceptable. So had we been able to bring a substitute bill to the floor, we were going to address that issue.

I hope FEMA will listen. I think I speak for both sides. I know the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) agreed with this when we raised it in committee that FEMA will promptly do the elevations necessary so that construction can proceed.