Floor Statements

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

Madam Speaker, I intend to vote for this bill, as I believe all of us plan to. It is a very reasonable approach. It makes some changes in the rural housing program which are limited both geographically and chronologically, which is the way to do this short-term approach.

There were some other issues raised, and the majority has agreed with us there are other changes that could be made in this program; and I believe we will be taking them up later to do a more permanent situation.

There is one permanent change here involving the program known as the 502 program which gives some flexibility in financing and I think all who are interested in this favor.

I will take a minute or two to note, this is about rural housing. This is housing built with Federal help, generally public-private cooperation, federally subsidized, assisted housing in rural areas; and I stress that because too often when we talk about Federal housing programs, people think only about the big cities. Here we are not talking just about New Orleans, but the adjacent parishes. As the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) pointed out, we are talking about small communities along the Mississippi coast.

There is a need for housing assistance in various places, and we should stress again this is very important housing that helps people of low- and moderate income in rural areas, sparsely settled areas, to have decent places to live. So it is a reminder that housing programs are not simply big-city programs, but appropriately done are programs that meet needs in various places.

What this does is to give the flexibility during the next 6 months so the rural housing programs and the housing built there in the affected areas, people can respond to that with some flexibility. Money will not be lost; money will be reprogrammed. It is a product of a great deal of thoughtful collaboration on both sides of the aisle, and I intend to vote for this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the committee.

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

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, once again, this is a bill that is broadly, probably unanimously, supported, or overwhelmingly; and it reflects a good deal of conversation. We appreciate the willingness of the Members on the majority side to come together. Obviously, there continue to be some differences between us on some policy issues; but in terms of responding to this emergency, those are not things that should get in the way. I think both sides showed a spirit of cooperation. The majority was very helpful, and we have legislation that can be widely supported.

But, once again, the problem is what it does is good, but what it does not do is not so good. In particular in this case we ought to be substantially increasing the CDBG funding. Now, we are not the Committee on Appropriations. We do have an authorizing power.

Giving the people the ability to spend on more things but not more money is better than nothing, but not nearly good enough. CDBG needs the kinds of things that CDBG does, both for the larger communities of 50,000 or more, called ``entitlement cities,'' but also what we should be doing here is providing to the Governors of the affected States funding which they could use in their CDBG programming, because they get one-third of it, for those communities that are in areas of less than 50,000 population, that is, they are the Small Communities Program, and we should be increasing the funding there. I hope at an appropriate time we will do that, because these communities are going to need a great deal of help.

The CDBG program is one of the logical ways to do it. We know how to spend here. It is a program which has had virtually no scandal, to my knowledge. It is a program which works well, and simply expanding this existing funding mechanism would be one very good way to get money to people very quickly in ways they know how to spend.

But I also should note, as the gentlewoman from California noted, I guess in some ways those of us who have been advocates of an active government role in the housing and community development areas can feel somewhat more supported today than we often are on this floor, because we have now had three bills in a row which take advantage of the existence of federally funded programs which have a lot of critics around here.

We have had proposals from the administration this year, from HUD, to dismantle in their existing form both the voucher program and the CDBG program. There was a proposal to block grant the voucher program. Block granting, by the way is what people do to programs they do not like. I have been here a long time. Nobody in my memory has ever proposed block granting a Federal program which he or she supported.

What we had basically was an effort to cut back on the voucher program. What we are doing now is taking the concept of the voucher program and greatly expanding it, through FEMA funding; but, yes, it is a voucher program that has not only proven its worth but is a lifeline at a time when we need one. It would have been a bad thing if we would have had to invent such a program right now because of all the startup problems you would have.

Similarly, as the gentlewoman from California pointed out, this administration proposed the most hair-brained reorganization of the Community Development Block Grant program imaginable. They took the Community Development Block Grant, which aids communities, they took the Community Services Block Grant, which deals with poverty, they took the Community Development Financial Institutions, which deals with economic development in cities, and decided to put them all in the Commerce Department.

CDBG and CSBG have a particular impact on poverty. I think what happened was they had a contest over there in the administration, maybe one of those lotteries they have when they try to help 1 percent of the people that need housing, and they decided to find the Federal Department that had the least orientation towards helping poor people, so they could take these programs that help poor people and give it to that Department.

So we took it out of HUD, and we took it out of the Health and Human Services Department, and they took programs out of Labor, and they sent them to the Department of Commerce, I think on the grounds that the Department of Commerce really did not know enough about poverty, and this is a way for them to learn. I am all for educating people, but not by giving them Federal programs as their blocks.

So what we have today is an affirmation in this bill of the importance of the Community Development Block Grant program as a proven mechanism for getting aid out.

Again, I want to say, and I suppose this will cause a little friction, maybe some people will have to disassociate themselves, but I do appreciate the difference between the members of our committee on the majority side in their approach to these things and the administration. Unlike the administration, which had as its intention dismantling these things, and we, I think were not going to act on that, we are here trying to build on them.

Of course, there is always room for improvement. We have been having some conversations about how to improve the voucher program, how to streamline it, how to make it more efficient. But substantially diminishing it would have been a mistake. So I am very pleased.

Of course, that was also the case with rural housing, because one of the things I hope we will do in the near future, in the next few months, this year or next year, is to go to the rural housing program and take some steps that will preserve that as a source of affordable housing.

There are trends and various complications that we do not need to go into here now, which, if not confronted, we could lose that housing. So we have a recognition today of the importance of the concept of the voucher program. We have a recognition of the importance of the Community Development Block Grant mechanism in delivering services with Federal funding. We have a recognition of the importance of preserving and using that rural housing stock. I hope all of those will go forward.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I do want to repeat again, these steps are useful. They leave us with a lot to do. The problem is that the Bush administration at this point has zero proposals that will respond to the longer-term needs of these affected communities. I am told these proposals are coming, and I do not doubt some of my colleagues will be coming forward with them.

But we did have a speech from the President of the United States in which he outlined his plans; and the one I looked at very closely was his housing plan, his housing plan consisting of an effort to find existing Federal properties that the Federal Government does not want or need and have a lottery, so a very small percentage, 1 or 2 percent of the people in need, can get Federal property and zero dollars from any source that we control to help make them into housing. And that, let us be clear, that is the sum total of the President's proposal for the longer term. It is wholly inadequate.

We have made a step here today. I look forward to our being back on this floor in coming months to talk about a broader set of proposals for community development, for housing and for other things; and I hope at the time we will keep in mind the importance of building on and improving these existing programs and continue to reject the kind of radical dismantling that the administration has proposed, and instead to try and have their return to the 19th century with the concept of homesteading, which is inappropriate, inadequate, and ill thought out.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of a gifted group of students from the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth who have designed and built an entry at this year's Department of Energy Solar Decathlon.

The Solar Decathlon brings 18 college and university teams to participate in this innovative solar competition to design, build, and operate the most attractive and energy-efficient solar-powered home. Student teams built their solar houses on their respective campuses and will transport them to the National Mall in Washington, DC, where they will form a solar village on the National Mall.

The solar village is open to the public October 7-16, 2005. The teams' solar houses are open for touring every day except October 12, when they are closed for competition purposes. An overall winner will be announced on October 14.

I especially wanted to note that after the competition the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Solar Decathlon Team will be donating their solar home to Habitat For Humanity where it will be permanently installed in Northeast DC as a Habitat-provided home. I'm proud to have the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth in my district and to represent these bright young people who have worked so hard to draw attention to the benefits of alternative energy.

Mr. Speaker, for years I have taken the opportunity to share through the pages of the Congressional Record the important work done by a very significant institution--ROFEH International--New England Chassidic Center.

This important organization, led by Grand Rabbi Levi Y. Horowitz, does extremely important and creative work in the medical field. Rabbi Horowitz is himself a very distinguished expert in the field of medical ethics, and demonstrates beyond any argument that an appreciation of the advantages of modern medicine and a deep commitment to one of the world's great religious traditions is not only fully compatible but can be mutually reinforcing.

This organization has done a great deal to help people in need of medical treatment and has done much to make sure that the superb medical facilities of the Greater Boston Area are available to people worldwide.

This year at the Annual Dinner on November 20, ROFEH International- New England Chassidic Center will honor two very eminent men who have distinguished themselves in support of this important work.

Dr. Peter Black, Neurosurgeon-in-Chief at Brigham and Women's Hospital, receives the ``ROFEH International Distinguished Service Award.'' Rahmin Kodsi, President of Clement Textile Company in Boston, is the recipient of the ``Man of the Year'' award.

Mr. Speaker, the sort of work that ROFEH International-New England Chassidic Center does in the medical field is highly worthy of emulation and I am taking advantage of this opportunity to ask that the drafts of biographies of these two extremely qualified honorees be made a part of this record.

Peter M. Black, M.D., Ph.D.

Dr. Peter Black has devoted most of his professional life to understanding and treating patients of all ages with brain tumors and/ or epilepsy. He has traveled widely in developing countries to teach techniques and concepts. In Boston, he has developed a busy neurosurgical practice, believing that compassion, good judgment, and technical excellence must go hand in hand.

Dr. Black is a graduate of Harvard College and McGill Medical School, with neurosurgical residency at the Massachusetts General Hospital and a staff position there. In 1987, he became Franc D. Ingraham Professor of Neurosurgery at Harvard Medical School, Chairman, Departments of Neurosurgery at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Children's Hospital, Neurosurgeon-in-Chief at Brigham & Women's Hospital, and Chief of Neurosurgical Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Center, positions he has continued to hold since then.

He has published extensively in tumor and epilepsy research with over 350 peer-reviewed papers and ten books on these topics. His clinical work emphasizes cutting edge technology for treating tumors of all types; he is a leader in image-guided minimally invasive surgery, brain mapping, and intraoperative imaging for tumors.

Dr. Black is the chairman of the editorial board of Neurosurgery and sits on several other editorial boards of scientific journals. He is a frequent invited speaker at national and international conferences. Among his awards are the Mayfield, ASEAN and Botterell awards, the Distinguished Service award for the Joint Section on Tumors, the Distinguished Leadership in Neuroscience award for the Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives, and the Pioneer Award from the Children's Brain Tumor

Foundation, and the Thomson Compassionate Scholar award from the Brigham and Women's Hospital.

Dr. Peter Black and Katharine his wife of38 years, have five children: Winifred, Peter Thomas, Elizabeth, Katharine, and Christopher, who live and work around the world.

Mr. Rahmin Kodsi

Born in Cairo, Egypt in 1929, Rahmin Kodsi was only 16 years old when his father passed away. As the only son who suddenly needed to support his mother and two sisters, Rahmin was forced to drop out of school to assume his late father's textile business.

In 1960, Rahmin married Ginette, and they are now the proud parents of three daughters: Louna Levana, Lili Leah and Joyce Simcha.

During the Six Day War, the Egyptian government imprisoned and confiscated the property of successful Jews, accusing them of involvement with the Israeli government. As a prominent Egyptian Jew, Rahmin suffered that fate as well, though he was fortunate (relatively) enough to only spend 3 weeks in prison. He was subsequently relocated to Naples, and his family followed three months later. The Kodsi family lived briefly in Paris and then came to Boston in 1968.

In Boston, Rahmin opened his first textile business-Clement Textile-- in 1971. He has contributed significantly to the Boston Jewish landscape as well as to the business world. He sits on the board of directors of the Sephardic Community of Greater Boston, and he participates in many other philanthropic projects.

Today, Rahmin and Ginette live in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, where they share many simchas with their daughters,

Mr. Chairman, first, the first half of the gentleman's remarks previously are irrelevant. We are not disputing the importance of including faith-based groups as providers. When this question came up years ago, I was ardently for it. No one is trying to prevent faith-based groups from providing the service. No one is saying that a faith-based using its own money, using private money, using private donations has to pay any attention to the question of hiring if they choose to have only their religious co-workers.

The question is if a faith-based group wants to take Federal money paid for by every taxpayer in this country, is it a violation of their religious character to say, with that Federal money, they must not discriminate in hiring?

The religious character being imputed to these groups makes me think that we are talking about the constitution of the Iraq. What is this? The Sunnis should not have to hire the Shias? The Shias should not have to deal with the Kurds? What is the principle here? Are we not trying to promote the notion of people living together? What religious group taking Federal money says, ``You know what, I want to help these poor people, but not with a Jew,'' ``I cannot have a Baptist working for me,'' ``no Mormon need apply''?

We are not talking about administering religious services. We are not talking about performing religious rites. We are talking about taking Federal money to perform what has to be, remember, a secular service. We all agree to that. If it were not a wholly secular service, no one would expect us to be funding it with Federal money. And this is the question I have to ask my friends. Of course we want religious groups there. Why is it so terrible to tell Jews that they must associate with Baptists if Federal money is being spent to provide child care services?

What violation of the religious right of a Catholic is to say you have to hire a Methodist? How are Episcopalians being deprived of their religious integrity if they are told that, you know what, when you have Federal money in this program, if you hire a Presbyterian, that is okay. I mean, this is fundamental, we thought, in America.

Again, we are talking about Federal money, and we are talking about not imputing to religious groups an insistence on bigotry and discrimination in the spending of Federal funds.

Mr. Speaker, the senior Democrat on the committee, the gentleman from Tennessee, has tried very hard to get an answer as to why a very straightforward amendment could not be voted on, and he could not get an answer.

I will tell him he could not get an answer because the real answer is embarrassing. We have got now increasing unhappiness on the conservative wing of the Republican Party, its dominant wing, about the notion that we should have democracy on the floor of the House of Representatives.

We had a bill that was voted out of the Committee on Financial Services 65 to 5. It is being held off the floor despite the urgings of the chairman of the committee and the two relevant subcommittee chairmen because the conservatives think the House might vote wrong, and they have now acknowledged this.

In the September 19 Washington Times, talking about the hate crimes amendment which was adopted because we had an open rule, here is what the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, says: ``Our side lets this hate-crimes amendment get into a children's protection bill because we let it come to the floor on an open rule, a vehicle made for liberals to use.''

So that is the problem. Apparently the right wing has gotten so little confidence in its ability to win votes on the floor that they now consider openness a liberal plot.

The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), according to the article, says he does not know how or why the House leadership allowed the children's safety bill to come to the floor under an open rule, meaning unlimited amendments could be proposed and voted on.

To quote the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry): ``As members of the majority party, we're asking: How could we allow this to happen? Why did we give the opposition an easy route to victory?''

Well, it used to be called democracy and open procedures. So what we have is an acknowledgment by this very conservative wing that their position could not sustain itself in open debate and vote on the floor of the House, and so they are insisting that the House Committee on Rules not let things come up.

That is the answer to the gentleman from Tennessee. His amendment was not allowed in order because it would have won. I guarantee him, if they were convinced they could have beat it, they would have let it come in.

I have to repeat, with this now open repudiation of the notion that the House should be allowed to work its will, and I know we do not address people watching on television, I will say this to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, if there are people in the newly elected parliament of Afghanistan or the constituent assembly in Iraq are watching, as we preach to them democracy, as we tell them as members of a legislative body they should express the will of the people, if they understand this new opposition on the part of the conservatives who dominate the Republican Party, the openness on the floor of the House, please do not try this at home.

[From the Washington Times, Sept. 19, 2005]

Hate-Crime Add-On to Child Safety Bill Irks House GOP

(By Ralph Z. Hallow)

The chairman of the 100-member House Republican Study

Committee says conservative lawmakers, already angry about

what they see as out-of-control spending, are furious over

passage last week of a bill that included an amendment

expanding federal hate-crimes protections.

``House conservatives barraged me with their frustration

and concern over this bill,'' said Indiana Rep. Mike Pence,

the RSC chairman. ``Our guys are starting to spoil for a

fight after this bill.''

The bill, which passed 223-199, would federalize local

crimes if the suspected motive is animosity toward

homosexuals or ``transgender'' persons. Existing federal

hate-crimes laws already cover women and minorities.

With the help of 30 mostly liberal Republicans, Democrats

succeeded in making the measure part of a children's safety

bill in a move that took conservatives by surprise.

``First, we have $50 billion in new spending for Hurricane

Katrina relief, with no offsets in other spending,'' Mr.

Pence said, ``Next thing, our side lets this hate-crimes

amendment get into a children's protection bill because we

let it come to the floor on an open rule--a vehicle made for

liberals to use.''

North Carolina Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, another

conservative Republican, says he doesn't know how or why the

House Republican leadership allowed the children's safety

bill to come to the floor under an open rule, meaning

unlimited amendments could be proposed and voted on.

``We gave the far left a ripe opportunity for success,''

Mr. McHenry said. ``As members of the majority party, we're

asking: How could we allow this to happen? Why did we give

the opposition an easy route to victory?''

Conservatives in Congress have fought hate-crimes measures,

saying such legislation bestows on government the power to

presume to know and to punish criminal motives, rather than

the crimes themselves.

Rep. John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, presented the

hate-crimes legislation in the form of an amendment to House

Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.'s children's

safety bill, which strengthens the monitoring of child sex

offenders and increases penalties for molestation.

Co-sponsors of the hate-crimes amendment included

Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank and Wisconsin Rep. Tammy

Baldwin, both Democrats, and Connecticut Rep. Christopher

Shays and Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, both Republicans.

Mr. Pence says House Republicans voted to pass the child-

safety bill--it sailed through on a 371-52 vote--with the

Conyers hate-crimes amendment attached because they wanted

the children's protection portion and thought the Conyers

amendment would not survive joint House-Senate conference

reworking of the bill.

``I voted for [the measure] thinking it would be fixed in

conference,'' Mr. Pence said. ``I hope it will, but there are

rumblings that the Senate may take the bill as is and pass it

and send it to the president, which would be very frustrating

to a lot of us.''

``But I have enough confidence in Chairman Sensenbrenner

that he will clean this bill up.''

Mr. Speaker, it would be fruitless for any one of us to dedicate himself or herself to refuting every inaccuracy that is uttered on this floor, so I reserve that effort for those of particular public policy significance, and I want to address some comments by the gentleman from Texas, the majority leader, last week as he was justifying the hostage taking that has occurred with the bill that would create an affordable housing fund through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae's profits. We have, as you know, rules that urge us--not urge us--insist that we refrain from impugning each other's honesty. I will simply note that the gap between what the majority leader said and reality was unusually large even by the standards of political debate. First of all, he quite inaccurately said that nothing in the bill regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that came out of our committee, the Financial Services Committee, on a 65-5 vote, that nothing in that bill would have provided aid to the people who were stricken by the hurricane. He

was, of course, quite wrong. The basic mechanism which we are now talking about putting to the aid of the people who lost their homes was in the original bill. That is, the bill as it came out of committee said that 5 percent of the profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would go to affordable housing. Note that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's profits by everybody's agreement are increased by a series of associations they have with the Federal Government. Everyone acknowledges Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can borrow money from the public more cheaply than other entities, and we have said that in return for the arrangements that allow that to happen, we will impose certain restrictions on them. It is not a confiscation of private property; it is the recognition that these entities profit and we want something in return. There had been a lot of agreement that we were not getting enough in return. We thought one thing we could do was to take 5 percent of the after-tax profits and put it towards affordable housing.

In the bill that was there, it is true that the bill that we passed before the summer recess did not talk about the hurricane's effects, mainly because the hurricane had not happened, so we are guilty of not having foreseen the terrible events in Katrina. But the basic mechanism was there. What we did do after Katrina was to say, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) took the lead, the gentleman from Ohio the chairman of the committee and I said, Yes, that makes sense. Let's take this mechanism for affordable housing that was created and let's in this first year in particular focus as the first priority on Louisiana. But the mechanism that was available for us to do that was in the bill. It is simply wrong to say that there was nothing in the bill to help them. The basic mechanism for their aid was in the bill and we were then able to respond to this latest circumstance and send it there.

The second gap between what the majority leader said and reality was when he said, well, these are just negotiations. No, these are not negotiations. This is a kidnapping. This is a hostage taking. There is a legitimate philosophical objection by some of the most conservative Members of this body to the notion of putting these profits to help affordable housing. As I said, it is not just your average private corporation. These are private corporations whose profits are greatly enhanced by a series of governmental arrangements which they are greatly attached to. But we had that battle in committee and those who tried to kill this particular program of affordable housing as part of their profits lost by 53-17. Some of them are still against it. Some of them want some other changes. Let us have some votes on the floor.

From time to time, and I guess we finally have found one thing, Mr. Speaker, we have reached the limit of the majority's ability to run out the clock. In the past when they have had tough votes, we have waited 3 hours, 2 hours, more time as I have noted than it takes us to evacuate the building in case of a threat when they twist arms and put on pressure. Apparently even they recognize that support for using some of the profits of these private corporations, which profits are enhanced by Federal help, that putting that to affordable housing, particularly now when we have this need for housing in Louisiana, that they could not hold the rollcall open long enough to twist enough arms to get there. Well, that is democracy. Let us have the vote on the floor.

I would just add this, Mr. Speaker as I close. There is a lot of concern about how we are going to pay for the aid that we all believe should go to Louisiana. We have one small piece, hundreds of millions, but it is still hundreds of millions, and in most contexts that is not small, we have got a way to deal with the housing needs of those people without in any way impacting the Federal budget. Again, that mechanism was in the bill when it came out of committee. We were then able to adapt it to this situation. That is what the Republican leadership is refusing to allow the House to vote on. If the majority thinks it is a bad idea, I will regretfully wave good-bye to it, but I do not understand why under any theory of democracy a bill that comes out of committee 65-5 with a provision that was supported 53-17 is held hostage, not for negotiations but held hostage because there is a provision that some of the most conservative Members of the body are opposed to philosophically, they do not have the votes to beat it on the floor, they will not abide by democratic principles, they are engaging in this kind of ambush.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we did obviously get overwhelming consensus in the committee; and the vote among the Republican members of the committee was something 6 to 1 in favor of the bill. By the way, we have had some negotiation since, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) knows because he has been participating in them.

Some of the objections of some of the more conservative Members have been accommodated. Some safeguards were put in. Not everything was done that we liked on our side. We have been trying to be conciliatory, although people obviously had the power to go ahead.

Then, most recently, we decided this is a way to get money, if this bill were to pass quickly, to do housing so badly needed in the gulf area, frankly bypassing some of the normal problems you would have in terms of the need for regulations at OMB.

It would not go on the deficit. There has been a lot of concern about relief efforts that add to the deficit. This would be hundreds of millions of dollars, because it comes from the profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, not on the deficit.

The only other point I would say, and I would hope the majority would have something to say about it, he said people do not like some things about the bill. Well, as I read the Constitution, I did not find the word negotiation in private among the majority party as part of article

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing, has said giving assurance to the people of New Orleans, the poorer people in particular of New Orleans, and, frankly, a lot of African American people, that we will be committed to rebuilding the city so they can come back home is very important. The longer we delay on this bill, the longer we delay giving people what is very important reassurance at a critical time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I want to address some of the misconceptions that arise when we deal with this legislation. I and many of the strongest proponents of hate crimes legislation are also among the strongest proponents of free expression in this House, and I want to be very clear. A belief in free expression means the belief in the right of obnoxious people to say hateful things. This is not an effort to prevent people from engaging in racist or homophobic or sexist insults. I regard that to be a very unpleasant but fully constitutionally protected practice, and there have been mistaken assertions in this.

There was in fact a case in Philadelphia which lent itself to the interpretation that unpleasant speech was being prosecuted. That case was thrown out of court, and it was wrong. Nothing in this law in any way, this amendment that the gentleman from Michigan, who happens to be one of the greatest defenders of freedom of expression in the history of Congress, nothing in this amendment impinges in any way on anybody's right to say or write anything they want.

What it says is that if you commit an act which is otherwise a crime, because the predicate for this is that you have to commit a physical act which would be a crime against a person or property, but generally against a person, that it becomes an aggravating factor

if it is demonstrated to be motivated, and the courts have made it clear that you have to demonstrate this is an element of the crime in some way, you must demonstrate that it was motivated by prejudice.

Now the argument is, well, why is one kind of crime worse than any other? Well, in fact, of course, our laws, State and Federal, are replete with examples where the exact same act is treated more harshly depending on the motivation. We have laws that particularly single out crimes against the elderly. We have laws that say if you desecrate one kind of property it is worse than if you desecrate another.

Here is the rationale for this. If an individual is assaulted and the individual chosen for the assault was chosen randomly, that is a very serious problem for that individual, and the crime ought to be punished and the individual protected. But where individuals are singled out for assault because of their race, because of their sexual orientation, because of their gender or identity, and transgendered people are among those who have been most recently viciously and violently attacked, it is not simply the victim of the violent assault who is assaulted. Other people in that vicinity, in that area, who share those characteristics, are also put in fear. And it is legitimate for us to say that when you have individuals being singled out because of a certain characteristic, this becomes a crime that transcends the assault against the individual. It does not mean we do not protect the individual. It means that we go beyond that.

Now there are people who say, look, if you hit anybody, it is exactly the same thing. I doubt their sincerity, Mr. Chairman. Because, as I understand it, under Federal law, if one of us were to be walking out in the street with a private citizen and we were both assaulted, the individual assaulting us has committed a greater crime than the individual assaulting a private citizen. That is, we have one category of hate crimes in that it is a more serious crime to assault a Member of Congress.

Now, by the way, it is obviously not in any way constitutionally inappropriate to denounce Members of Congress. We all know that. So anyone who thinks that when you have enhanced a sentencing by singling out an individual you have immunized him or her from criticism, just look at us. I do not know anybody who is proposing that we get rid of that.

So here is what we are dealing with. We are dealing with a law which in no way impinges on anyone's freedom of expression and says that when individuals are physically harmed in part because of who they are that others who share that characteristic are also put in fear, and that is a way to try to diminish that form of activity.

I should add, too, that we have recently seen more of an outbreak of this sort of violence against people who are transgendered, and it is important for us to come to people's aid.

Of course, when people say, oh, well, this whole new thing is here, of course, the parent of hate crimes legislation is the anti-lynch laws of the 1930s. We tried in the 1930s to pass laws which were Federal hate crimes. The lynch laws were laws that said murder is murder, but where people are murdered for racial reasons in parts of the country where the individuals may not be protected, where law enforcement might be complicit, that is a Federal law.

Now it is true that while this House continuously passed such legislation, the Senate never did because of other things.

But the fact is that the principle of Federal intervention to protect individuals against crimes of violence that are ordinarily State crimes, in those cases where there is a pattern of nonenforcement, which is a predicate again for activity in this bill, goes back to anti-lynch laws, and I think many of us regret that those laws have not been passed.

Mr. Speaker, just before we adjourned, the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston issued a very thoughtful statement in support of the disengagement by Israel from the Gaza Strip, and the dismantling by the Israeli Government of Israeli settlements in that area.

Mr. Speaker, this was a very wrenching process for many in Israel, and the willingness of the Government of Israel--supported by a majority of the people of Israel--to engage in this withdrawal with all of its difficult emotional strains speaks highly of that country's willingness to take steps for peace.

The withdrawal from Gaza should not be the last action taken in this process, but it is unreasonable to expect that they will be able to take further actions in the absence of a showing by the Palestinian Authority of its willingness and ability to respond in kind to this disengagement.

The statement of the JCRC is a first rate statement of what should be done going forward, and it is an appropriate expression of support of a majority of the Jewish Community of Greater Boston for a peace process that is thoughtful, balanced and prudent. I ask that this important statement be printed here.

Jewish Community Expresses Support for Israel's Disengagement Plan

Nancy K. Kaufman, Executive Director and Susan A.

Calechman, President of the Jewish Community Relations

Council of Greater Boston issued the following statement

today regarding Israel's plans to disengage from the Gaza

Strip and communities in northern Samaria.

The JCRC fully supports Prime Minister Sharon and the

government of Israel as they begin implementation of the Gaza

disengagement plan. Israel's vigorous democracy is taking

bold and courageous risks in an effort to protect her

security and to renew the process of resolving the Israeli-

Palestinian conflict. We also support the Israeli

government's effort to resolve the conflict through a

negotiated two-state solution as expressed in the Road Map.

Final borders and other final status issues must be left to

the parties themselves to negotiate in a peace process free

from violence and the threat of violence.

Disengagement will only lead to a peaceful outcome if there

is a commitment on the part of the Palestinian leadership to

put an end to terrorism. We call upon the Palestinian

Authority (PA) to disarm the terrorist groups and their

infrastructure. This includes removal of existing stockpiles

of weapons and preventing such stockpiles from being rebuilt;

preventing the smuggling of weapons; closing of clandestine

weapons manufacturing and preventing attacks, especial1y

during the disengagement process. The future of peace, and

the stability of the PA itself, is fully dependent on it

taking this action.

We recognize the profound sacrifices being made by the

families who are being relocated, some after living in their

homes for nearly 30 years. The loss of their homes,

synagogues, farms, businesses and schools is an immense

sacrifice which should be recognized with efforts made to

bridge any gaps that develop among Israelis as a result of

this effort.

We condemn the rhetoric of a tiny extremist fringe that

promotes violence as a response to policies undertaken by the

democratically elected Israeli government. At the same time,

the rights of free speech and lawful dissent which are basic

and indispensable in a democratic society must be protected.

It is critically important that those with differing views of

the peace process condemn explicit hate speech, venomous

language, and threatening words. It is also important that

discussion among all the conflicting viewpoints be created to

promote an atmosphere in which differences can be expressed

with civility and respect.

We call on the U.S. government to continue its work with

Israeli and Palestinian leaders to ensure that all

commitments are met and that a resolution to this conflict

leads to a secure peace for both sides.

Mr. Speaker, preliminarily, I yield myself 1 minute just to introduce as our first speaker the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

The gentleman from Ohio correctly noted that we made our committee and the Congress follow some very substantial improvements from the standpoint both of fiscal responsibility and environmental sensitivity to the flood insurance program. Now, we obviously did not have in mind at that point something of this particular disastrous consequence, but we did put into the law, for the first time really, some of the environmentally important issues that should be there. I am hoping that elsewhere, as we go through the appropriations process, that program will be fully funded, particularly in the proposals for mitigation.

But on our side, it was a genuinely bipartisan issue. The former Member, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), collaborated with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who was the main co-author of that important reform in flood insurance.

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

Obviously, there is a great degree of support in the Congress for getting the money out right away. We have people who were victims of this flood, and they have been victims in a number of ways. This is one small piece of the compensation that goes to them. There will be people who will be uncompensated, people who did not have flood insurance, people who are not able to make the kind of partial payment that is required, but the least we can do is to make this payment.

But as we vote quickly to send this money, we need to work in the next few weeks and months to deal with and resolve some broader questions.

I believe that the country has suffered over the past decade, and it is particularly suffering now, from a philosophy that has undervalued the need for us as a civilized people to come together and work together on some things. We are a society run, to a great extent, according to the principles of the free market of private capital. It is a wonderful system for generating wealth. The goods and services that are produced through the free market system benefit all of us, and that free market system leads to the best possible production.

The problem comes with people who are so enamored of that system that they value it not only for what it does, but for what it does not do, is not supposed to do, and should not be burdened with trying to do. That is, there are in this society a number of very important values that we have as civilized people with a moral commitment to each other's well-being that can only be done if we pool our resources.

Let us take the specific issue we are now talking about: insurance. The insurance industry is a private industry. It is an industry that provides important services to people, that provides jobs for people, that pools resources and provides investment capital. But even in the area of insurance, we have recognized historically, there are some gaps.

The very existence of the Federal Flood Insurance Program, which we are here today financing, is an acknowledgment that there are limits to the private system. Private insurance, we have decided as a society, cannot handle the flood question, so the government must step in. I say that because it has become fashionable to denounce government, to take credit for less government. Well, less government, what does that mean? Less FEMA, less flood insurance, less for the Corps of Engineers?

This is an example. We are here today to provide more government. We are here today to provide public resources, $2 billion. By the way, this $2 billion, we are authorizing the flood insurance program to borrow it. They are going to borrow it from the Treasury. They will be borrowing it from the Treasury which will, of course, in turn borrow it from the capital markets, from the American people, from China, and from everybody else who lends us money. That is the second point I want to make.

As we now acknowledge after this terrible disaster and an inadequate response to the disaster, partly caused by a failure to appreciate the importance of our coming together through government to perform important functions, we will be spending a great deal of additional money. We are adding this $2 billion, I assume, to the deficit, let us be clear.

We are not having any offsets. And this is a very small part of what we are doing. The time has come to recognize that we have over these past years left this Federal Government with too little in the way of resources to carry out our purposes. And we talk a lot about values and about the moral purposes we seek to achieve. I believe strongly that morality ought to be an element of public policy. I believe that we have not fulfilled our moral duty to the poorest people and working people and lower middle income people in New Orleans and elsewhere who have not been treated fairly as they were victimized.

That is a moral question. It is a moral question when people are left behind because they do not have the resources to leave and other people leave. It is a moral question when people are not rescued when they could be rescued. It is a moral question when we let people live now in conditions brought about by this flood that are not decent conditions for human beings.

And part of the answer, not all of the answer, but a necessary part of the answer is for the government to have the resources. And those who subscribe to the view that we must here in this House carry out our moral duty to each other should understand one of our moral duties right now is to go to people in need, to people who are frail, who are ill, who are young, who are old, who are in good health, but who have been reduced by physical forces to circumstances that no one of us would want to live in.

And only if we come together through this mechanism called government, and only if we give this mechanism called government resources, tax money, because that is where the money comes from, will we have the capacity to discharge our fundamental moral duty. We talk a lot about family values. Let us value the families that have been so badly battered by this hurricane and whose condition was exacerbated by an inadequate response by the rest of the country.

I cannot think of a better demonstration of family values than to go to the families living in Astrodomes and Superdomes and other places, hardly adequate for a family to live in. Let us go show our family values by doing whatever we can. We can never make people whole in the situation, but let us try to alleviate their misery.

Well, again, we are borrowing $2 billion today, and I am glad we are doing that because we need to get to their aid. But it is a very small part of what we need to do. But I hope that this $2 billion will not stay borrowed. This $2 billion, a very small piece of what we need to do, underlines the importance of our, let me put it this way.

We have, I think, a greater recognition of the value of government than we used to. I have not heard anybody today boast about how much they have reduced government. Indeed, I have heard virtually universal insistence that the government has got to do more in housing. We have got to do a better job with the Corps of Engineers, and we have got to do a better job with the EPA to deal with the terrible environmental problems that will result from this. We have to increase Medicaid funding at the Federal level for some of the States that are receiving people. We have to provide more funding for education. We are going to have to rebuild streets; we are going to have to pay police officers overtime.

There will be enormous demands on this government for money. And what does that mean? It means enormous demands that we recognize our moral obligation to each other and each other's families to alleviate the effects of the disaster. Let us not just borrow that money. Let us not just add it to the deficit. The time has come to say that we have left ourselves inadequately prepared to deal with this.

For anyone, an individual, a company, a nonprofit institution or a government to live deliberately and consciously on the edge is irresponsible, but that is what we have done to ourselves in this country. We have so reduced the resources available to this Federal Government that when this terrible disaster hit, we left ourselves inadequately prepared financially to deal with it. We did not do enough because of financial problems in the past.

But let us now say, okay, we now understand this. There is a war going on in Iraq. I opposed it, but the war is there, and it imposes costs on us. There is still an effort in Afghanistan which I supported. Now we have this disaster. The time has come to recognize that this government, the instrument of our collective moral capacity in this instance, and volunteers will be very helpful, and I salute the volunteers who have done this.

But no one thinks that individual volunteerism is going to resolve this crisis. There needs to be a common effort, coordinated and organized; and that means government. So for those who have joined in the insistence that we spend more, we have spent $50 billion in the supplemental, $2 billion here, and then we will do more in housing. And the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), who has been a great leader for us in the housing area, his committee. As we sit here today and stand here today, in another part of this complex a meeting is going on. The gentleman from Ohio, to his credit, convened all of the groups dealing with housing, low-income advocates, public officials, manufactured housing, homebuilders, people who finance housing. They are giving us an important set of ideas about how to respond.

Now, some of them can be done by cutting red tape and by giving flexibility. They do not all cost money. But some of them cost money. You cannot take people who have lost physical homes and house them decently without money. So we have in every area

virtually where the Federal Government is involved a need to spend more money. The height of irresponsibility would be, it seems to me, to join in this insistence on spending more money and to refuse to address the revenue problems of the government.

How can you be in favor of spending hundreds of billions perhaps, certainly well over a hundred billion extra in addition to everything else we have been spending, but say, oh, and by the way let us cut some more revenue from the government. Let us leave the government less able to do this. And understand that people said, well, it will be a deficit and we can live with a deficit.

This absence of resources puts a constraint on spending. Of course spending should not be wasteful. But it is clear, if you look, I have been here, we have done these appropriations, and appropriations chairman after appropriations chairman has come up and said, you know, I agree, we do not have enough money here. I wish we had more money for housing. I wish we had more money for transportation. I wish we could have done more for medical research. I wish we could have done more for environmental cleanup. But given the budgets, that is all we could do.

In other words, the self-imposed restriction has hurt us. Previously, it was maybe a philosophical debate. Today, it is a moral necessity. It simply is not, it seems to me, morally acceptable, it is not in consonance with family values to continue to deprive ourselves of the resources we need to meet these needs. And so I support this two billion, and I will support many billions more, tens of billions more. But I will also support changing some of the policies of the past.

The wealthiest people in this country, people who make more than $500,000 a year in income, I think it is reasonable for us to say to them, you know, over the past few years, your taxes have been reduced and you have profited. The time has come for us to undo some of those tax breaks. Leave in place everything up to $500,000, if that is what you want to do. I would change it even further. But at the very least can we not say that people's incomes above $500,000 should no longer get the tax reduction they got? None of them will be hurting. None of them will be competing for space in the shelters. None of them will need any reconstruction of their homes. And if we do not do that, no matter how much we say, oh, we do not care, we will just add it to the deficit. We do not care. We will care because nobody is so irresponsible as to totally disregard that deficit impact.

And so if we are going to be true to what we have been saying we want to do, if we are true to our own moral profession, then we have two obligations, one, sensibly, thoughtfully, not wastefully, to spend the resources it is going to take to deal with this problem. And by the way, let us be clear. We do not want to alleviate this problem by exacerbating others. We do not want people from this area to go and take housing that is already scarce and knock other people out or knock other people's schools out or compete for scarce Medicaid dollars.

We need to increase what we are doing. We need to do a better job of preparing for this in the future. This will take, we all agree, a very large amount of money. It may be fun to spend the money, or at least it is popular. It would not be morally appropriate to spend all this money and to take credit for spending the money without going back and undoing some of the tax reductions so that some of the wealthiest people in this country who have enjoyed great prosperity lose a little of their tax breaks and contributed so at the very least this additional spending will not add to the deficit, will not be a burden for the future; and the fact that it is a deficit will not be a constraint on our willingness to spend what is necessary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman from Ohio who has been one of the Members who has not been willing to give up our responsibility, and we will work together.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, just before we adjourned, the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston issued a very thoughtful statement in support of the disengagement by Israel from the Gaza Strip, and the dismantling by the Israeli government of Israeli settlements in that area.

Mr. Speaker, this was a very wrenching process for many in Israel, and the willingness of the government of Israel--supported by a majority of the people of Israel--to engage in this withdrawal with all of its difficult emotional strains speaks highly of that country's willingness to take steps for peace. The withdrawal from Gaza should not be the last action taken in this process, but it is unreasonable to expect that they will be able to take further actions in the absence of a showing by the Palestinian Authority of its willingness and ability to respond in kind to this disengagement.

The statement of the JCRC is a first-rate statement of what should be done going forward, and it is an appropriate expression of support of a majority of the Jewish Community of Greater Boston for a peace process that is thoughtful, balanced and prudent. I ask that this important statement be printed here.

Jewish Community Expresses Support for Israel's Disengagement Plan

July 19, 2005.

Nancy K. Kaufman, Executive Director and Susan A.

Calechman, President of the Jewish Community Relations

Council of Greater Boston issued the following statement

today regarding Israel's plans to disengage from the Gaza

Strip and communities in northern Samaria.

``The JCRC fully supports Prime Minister Sharon and the

government of Israel as they begin implementation of the Gaza

disengagement plan. Israel's vigorous democracy is taking

bold and courageous risks in an effort to protect her

security and to renew the process of resolving the Israeli-

Palestinian conflict. We also support the Israeli

government's effort to resolve the conflict through a

negotiated two-state solution as expressed in the Road Map.

Final borders and other final status issues must be left to

the parties themselves to negotiate in a peace process free

from violence and the threat of violence.

Disengagement will only lead to a peaceful outcome if there

is a commitment on the part of the Palestinian leadership to

put an end to terrorism. We call upon the Palestinian

Authority (PA) to disarm the terrorist groups and their

infrastructure. This includes removal of existing stockpiles

of weapons and preventing such stockpiles from being rebuilt;

preventing the smuggling of weapons; closing of clandestine

weapons manufacturing and preventing attacks, especially

during the engagement process. The future of peace, and the

stability of the PA itself, is fully dependent on it taking

this action.

We recognize the profound sacrifices being made by the

families who are being relocated, some after living in their

homes for nearly 30 years. The loss of their homes,

synagogues, farms, businesses and schools is an immense

sacrifice which should be recognized with efforts made to

bridge any gaps that develop among Israelis as a result of

this effort.

We condemn the rhetoric of a tiny extremist fringe that

promotes violence as a response to policies undertaken by the

democratically elected Israeli government. At the same time,

the rights of free speech and lawful dissent which are basic

and indispensable in a democratic society must be protected.

It is critically important that those with differing views of

the peace process condemn explicit hate speech, venomous

language, and threatening words. It is also important that

discussion among all the conflicting viewpoints be created to

promote an atmosphere in which differences can be expressed

with civility and respect.

We call the U.S. Government to continue its work with

Israeli and Palestinian leaders to ensure that all

commitments are met and that a resolution to this conflict

leads to a secure peace for both sides.

Mr. Speaker, while I am not an expert in time management, I do have a suggestion that would allow the House to better use its time.

Last night we spent well over an hour here, a lot of very busy people, while the leadership variously cajoled, bribed, browbeat, et cetera, a few Republicans who wanted to have it both ways, who wanted to give people the impression they were opposed to CAFTA while they were ready to cave in for sufficient inducement.

What we should have done, and I propose this for the future, is the next time we have one of those tough votes where they are going to have to do that with their Members, let us schedule an evacuation drill from the House.

The fact is at the time the plane was flying over here and a roll call was open and we evacuated the House, it took about the same time as it took them to cajole and blackmail and browbeat their people last night.

So why not do two things at once? The next time they know there is a bill they are going to cram down people's throats that they do not want to vote for and want to pretend to their voters they are against it, and it is going to take them an hour or 2 to find out ways to get them to help fool people, why not schedule in advance an evacuation drill, and that way we can kill two birds with one stone? And since people might not know it is a drill, they can threaten people who do not vote with them: They can make them stay here in case there is a plane crash.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask to what guidelines the gentleman refers. I know there have been guidelines about bringing a bill up at all, but I am not aware of any guidelines that govern the deliberations of a bill once it has been brought forward. Could the Speaker enlighten us as to what guidelines he is discussing?

I am not aware of guidelines that deal with the bill once it is before us. I understand they have dealt with whether or not you consider the bill.

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Would someone point to the rule of the House? First, Mr. Speaker, I must say ``inappropriate'' does not seem to me to be a parliamentary term. Something is either in order or it is out of order. Appropriateness may deal with etiquette, it may deal with how well Members are dressed and how nice they look, but I understood under parliamentary procedure you are either in order or not in order. Would someone refer to me the section of our rules, Jefferson's Manual, which talks about appropriateness?

Mr. Speaker, why would I have to approach the Chair? This is a public forum. I believe this notion of appropriateness is a gloss on the rules that does not exist. Can we not have a citation to the rule of appropriateness?

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. We are told that these guidelines supersede the rules, during the consideration of a bill that unanimous consent is not in order? I had not previously heard that. Further, I understood they dealt with whether or not Members were recognized. Once recognized, as the gentleman from New York was, I am not aware of any restriction on what the gentleman can do as long as it is within the rules. Those guidelines dealt with recognition, as I understood it.

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Does that mean any unanimous consent request to amend a bill is out of order unless it meets what standard? Could the Chair enlighten us as to how one would become in order?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to offer an amendment which is in writing at the desk and is germane.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment I sought to offer which was kept out by an objection from the bill's manager would have dealt with the section referred to by the gentleman from Indiana. I also, like the gentleman from Indiana, am prepared to vote for, as I have in the past, some restrictions on medical malpractice.

But what we have in this bill which has not gotten a lot of attention, and the gentleman from Indiana pointed it out, is a total exemption from punitive damages for drug manufacturers who get an FDA approval even though we have seen flaws in the FDA approval process.

What the majority has now made clear, they are insisting that this be taken in whole. The gentleman from Indiana made a good point, an objection to this amendment, and I share his objection. What I do not share is his faith that this is going to be taken care of.

The gentleman from Indiana, my good friend, was uncharacteristically mellow today in accepting an assurance that this will be looked at. I agree it will be looked at. It will be held up to the light. It will be turned upside down, and it will be looked at and looked at and looked at until it is signed into law, and then people will still be able to look at it as the law and those drug companies will have that exemption.

So what I offer today, and one might have thought under democratic procedures this would have been allowed, was simply to vote on that. I was, in the spirit of bipartisanship, acting on the suggestion of the gentleman from Indiana. Forget about everything said about medical malpractice; the amendment I sought to offer and was blocked from offering by that objection, as we were by the Committee on Rules' heavy-handedness, simply would have allowed this body to decide whether as part of a medical malpractice bill you would give an exemption from punitive damages to drug companies. That is not medical malpractice. That is not related to the core of this bill. The majority will not even allow this to be discussed.

I think it is wrong to give that kind of exemption certainly without a lot more consideration, but what is even more wrong is this further abuse of power. The majority simply will not allow this House, like the gentleman from Indiana, elected representatives of the people, to decide on whether or not we give an exemption to the drug manufacturers.

They take medical malpractice, a sympathetic issue, and use it to cloak immunity for the drug manufacturers in part, and then arrogantly refuse to allow the House to vote on it.

Mr. Speaker, I will say what I have said before. We are working with the people of Iraq and we are trying to get them to implement democracy. To the extent anyone from Iraq is watching the proceedings here, I would say to them, Please do not try this at home. Please do not, in the Iraqi Assembly, show the contempt and the disregard and the arrogance for minority rights and democratic procedures, and maybe majority rights. I should amend this. They are not afraid of minority rights; they are afraid if we had an open and honest vote on this that a majority would decide not to let the drug companies carry out under that darkness.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas is right. I did vote for this bill last year, because I thought it was about medical malpractice and did not read it carefully. In fact, what happened was I made the mistake last year that the gentleman from Indiana might make this year. I believed that they would honestly talk about medical malpractice, and it did not occur to me they would try to sneak into this bill something that gave partial immunity to the drug manufacturers.

So I admit that I did not read it thoroughly, but I will not when the gentleman is managing bills make that mistake again.

Mr. Speaker, last week I opposed an amendment to the State Department Authorization Bill that would have put restrictions on the ability of the President to decide on the appropriate flow of aid to the Palestinian Authority, because I believe that a Palestinian Authority both willing and able to confront violent opposition to the peace process with Israel is essential for peace to succeed. Later that day, after our debate, I read--a bit tardily--an excellent article that had been published in the Washington Post, for Wednesday, July 20, by the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Daniel Ayalon. I believe that Ambassador Ayalon is an extremely able diplomat, who is himself a dedicated supporter of a rational process leading to a genuine two state solution in the Middle East. The article he wrote underlines the importance of a commitment by the Palestinian Authority to take the steps necessary to curtail the activities of those in the Palestinian community who are determined to bring the peace process to a violent halt.

As Ambassador Ayalon notes, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has confronted those within Israel who are opposed to the peace process in general, and very specifically to the withdrawal of Jewish settlers from Gaza. This is of course, as the Ambassador points out, a cause of great anguish within Israel, and Prime Minister Sharon and his allies ought to be commended for the dedication to peace they are showing in their willingness to confront this opposition. It is entirely reasonable for Israel to ask, as Ambassador Ayalon does, for a comparable level of effort from President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority.

I do not mean by this to equate the opposition faced by President Abbas on the one hand and Prime Minister Sharon on the other. While I disagree strongly with those settlers who are seeking to derail the peace process, they have not in any significant degree resorted to the kind of murderous violence that has been the response of Hamas and others within the Palestinian community seeking to put an end to peace. I say that they are people seeking to put an end to the peace process, Mr. Speaker, because there is no other explanation for the decision to engage in terrorist murders of Israelis within Gaza while the Israeli Government is in fact in the process of withdrawing from Gaza. Individual Israelis are not the only victims of these murders--the peace process is also an intended victim.

I believe it is important for the United States to provide strong support for all those trying to go forward with this difficult peace process, and I think it is fair for Ambassador Ayalon to point out that the effort so far of President Abbas have fallen short of what Israel has a right to expect.

I will continue to oppose, as I did last week, measures that seem to me to undercut President Abbas' ability to go forward with this admittedly difficult task. At the same time, I think it is important for those of us who are strong supporters of the peace process to join in reminding President Abbas of the importance of his being more successful than he has in the past in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that Daniel Ayalon's article be printed here.

[From the Washington Post, July 20, 2005]

In Gaza, a Test Case for Peace

(By Daniel Ayalon)

Next month thousands of Israelis will be uprooted from

their homes in 25 settlements, against the backdrop of

widespread political opposition and intensifying Palestinian

terrorism. Israel faces difficult days ahead.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is boldly determined to move

forward with disengagement from Gaza and the northern West

Bank out of a deep conviction that it is critical to Israel's

future. Unfortunately, the Palestinian leadership has failed

to meet him halfway. The Palestinian Authority's refusal to

disarm terrorist organizations has enabled the terrorists to

regroup and renew deadly attacks against Israelis,

compounding the difficulties of this engagement and casting

an ominous shadow on the possibility of future progress.

The sharp increase in Palestinian terrorist attacks,

particularly in the past week, underscores the precariousness

of the situation. While Israel is committed to completing the

disengagement as planned, we will not sit idly by while our

civilians are under attack. Time is running out for the

Palestinian leadership to confront the terrorists. Should it

fail to do so, Israel will be forced to take the necessary

steps to defend its people. Lest the Palestinians miss

another historic opportunity, the world should insist that

they crack down on terrorism now.

After numerous failed attempts by Israelis and Palestinians

to reach peaceful accommodation over the past 15 years,

Sharon decided to embark on a different course. Disengagement

is an immense political, strategic and indeed historical

undertaking, aimed at reducing friction between Israelis and

Palestinians, jump-starting the peace process and providing

the Palestinians with a unique opportunity to build

institutions of responsible self-governance.

At the same time, it puts a terrible burden on thousands of

Israelis called on to leave their homes against their will.

Many have lived there for more than three generations.

Specially trained, unarmed units will move from house to

house as part of a massive logistical operation involving

some 50,000 security personnel, accompanied by teams of

social workers and psychologists. Living, breathing

communities, some more than 30 years old, will simply vanish.

Businesses, factories and farms will be shut down. Schools,

synagogues and cemeteries will be relocated. The removal of

graves, including those of terrorism victims, will be

especially heart-wrenching.

The trauma of disengagement has unleashed dangerous rifts

in Israeli society. While the withdrawal is supported by most

of the public, many Israelis deeply oppose it on moral,

religious and security grounds. Sharon has demonstrated

steadfast leadership in the face of an unprecedented

political backlash from his traditional supporters. Given the

intense political opposition and growing civil disobedience,

the prospect of violent resistance cannot be ruled out.

Regardless of the outcome, the repercussions of disengagement

will be felt in Israel for years. At stake is not only the

success of disengagement but also the very fabric of Israeli

society.

Adding fuel to the fire, public anxiety in Israel has

increased because of the resurgence of Palestinian terrorism,

including suicide bombings, drive-by shootings and rocket

attacks. Rather than confront the terrorist organizations and

disarm them, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has invited

Hamas into his government, thereby providing a terrorist

organization with an official seal of approval. The result

has been an emboldened Hamas, a further weakening of the

Palestinian Authority and a potentially disastrous perception

that disengagement is a victory for terrorism rather than an

opportunity for peace.

Abbas must seize the moment and lead the Palestinians

toward peace. The terrorist organizations must be disarmed as

called for in the ``road map'' if Palestinian statehood is to

be achieved. This is nonnegotiable. Gaza is both the

opportunity and the test for the Palestinian leadership. Will

that leadership

prove itself capable of governing a functioning democratic

society, free from terrorism and focused on improving the

lives of its citizens, or will it squander yet another

opportunity? After leaving Gaza, Israel will no longer

provide an easy excuse for Palestinian failure.

The rock-solid, principled and bipartisan support for

Israel in the United States has been vital to our ability to

overcome terrorism and prepare the ground for a political

initiative. The notion of disengagement would have been

unthinkable had Israel not prevailed in the latest round of

sustained terrorism waged by the Palestinians since September

2000.

The stakes for Israel are enormous. We are a strong but

small country facing a largely hostile region roughly 500

times our size. We can ill afford to make mistakes. Iran's

nuclear weapons program is imminent, posing an existential

threat. Syria and Iran promote and support Palestinian

terrorist groups sworn to our destruction. Hezbollah has

intensified terrorist attacks against Israel from Lebanon,

opening a second front aimed at derailing any progress.

Despite these challenges, Israel has shown it is prepared to

take difficult steps to achieve President Bush's vision for

peace in the Middle East. The world should insist on no less

from the Palestinians.

The writer is Israel's ambassador to the United States.