Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to The Jewish Museum on the occasion of its centennial celebration. The Museum, located in the heart of New York City's Museum Mile, is the foremost American institution devoted to the exploration of Jewish art and culture. For one hundred years this museum has been a source of inspiration and education to New Yorkers and visitors from around the world.

The Jewish Museum--the first institution of its kind in the United States--began in 1904, when Judge Mayer Sulzberger donated 26 Jewish ceremonial art objects to the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Since then, the Museum's collection has grown to encompass more than 28,000 artifacts, including paintings, sculpture, photographs, archaeological finds, ceremonial objects, audiovisual materials and broadcast media. The museum sponsors a variety of special exhibitions, such as the recent Entertaining America: Jews, Movies and Broadcasting. Its permanent collection, Culture and Continuity: The Jewish Journey, has received international acclaim.

Piecing together an accurate representation of Jewish cultural history is a daunting task. In the last four thousand years, Jews have created communities in nearly every part of the world--and each of these communities has made a unique contribution to the Jewish experience. Through its exhibitions and collection, the Jewish Museum presents a narrative that spans millennia. That the Museum manages to tell this story in such a compelling and informative way is testament to the vision of the Museum's stewards, from Judge Sulzberger one hundred years ago to the institution's current Director, Ms. Joan Rosenbaum.

In addition to presenting the cultural history of the Jewish people, the Museum also sponsors groundbreaking exhibitions that greatly influence both the art world and our community as a whole. In 1966, the Museum's Primary Structures show defined the Minimalist art movement and introduced to a wide audience the works of Dan Flavin, Donald Judd and other major exemplars of the style. In 1970, the Museum reaffirmed its position on the leading edge of the art community when it presented Software, a pioneering exhibition of interactive, information technology-related art. Additionally, the Museum was among the first to exhibit the works of Jasper Johns and Robert Rauschenberg; other prominent artists, such as Marc Chagall, Wassily Kandinsky, and Camille Pissarro have also been featured by the Museum. The upcoming Modigliani show is expected to draw crowds to the first major exhibition of his work in New York since 1951.

The Jewish Museum strikes a perfect balance between beliefs that, in our world, too often compete with one another. Indeed, while the Museum celebrates Jewish culture and encourages the appreciation of the past, it also promotes tolerance for alternative points of view and seeks to nurture emerging trends. America, at its best, is likewise a harmony of different people and ideas; in fact, it is precisely this quality that makes our nation the greatest in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I request that my colleagues join me in paying tribute to The Jewish Museum, whose century of incomparable, pathbreaking achievements are truly worthy of celebration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleague and dear friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), with whom I founded and cochair the Hellenic Caucus to celebrate the 183rd anniversary of Greece's declaration of independence from the Ottoman Empire. March 25 has the same resonance in Greece that July 4 has in the United States.

Democracy traces its earliest roots back to ancient Greece, but it developed new strength in modern times from American colonists who demanded independence from Great Britain. When the Greeks of 1821 fought for independence from Turkey, they truly drew inspiration from the ideals and institutions of the fledgling United States. After 400 years of Ottoman rule, the Greeks began an 8-year battle that ended with the defeat of the Turkish Army.

Just as our defeat of the British Army was remarkable, so too was the Greeks' ability to defeat the Ottomans, a tremendous achievement. Against impossible odds, the Greeks broke free of one of the most powerful empires in history and gained their independence.

Mirroring our patriotic displays on July 4, Greeks celebrate this day with parades, speeches and parties. As many of my colleagues know, New York City is the home of the largest Hellenic population outside of Greece and Cyprus.

Western Queens, which I have the honor of representing, is often called Little Athens because of the large influence from Greece and Cyprus in that neighborhood. Recognizing the many similarities between our nations, it is a pleasure to take time to pay tribute to the Hellenic American community for their many contributions to America. We also honor the Federation of Hellenic Societies, which will lead the Greek Independence Day Parade in Manhattan.

As the Olympics return to Greece this summer, they have wisely chosen the Olympic spirit as the theme of this year's parade. I am pleased to recognize this year's Grand Marshals, my friends Demetrios and Georgia Kaloidis and John and Margo Katsimatidis and Honorary Marshals Yiannis Skoularikis and George Papageorgopoulos. They will be accompanied by the Federation President, Apostolos Tomopoulos, and I will place in the Record the many names of the leaders of the Hellenic community who will be participating this weekend.

In the year 2004, a vibrant Greek democracy once again serves as an inspiration to its neighbors and the free world. As discussions progress toward an end to the 30-year division of Cyprus, we hope that the serious concerns of the Hellenic Cypriot American community will be reflected in the final agreement.

Forty-six members of the Hellenic Caucus joined in a letter to Secretary Colin Powell and Secretary General Kofi Annan to express their hope that any agreement will recognize, among other provisions, property rights, the demilitarization of Cyprus, the establishment of the legal obligations of the guarantor powers, and the presence of United Nations troops throughout the transition.

I also led a delegation of members of the Hellenic Caucus who met with Secretary General Kofi Annan last Friday to discuss the negotiations regarding the reunification of Cyprus before it enters the European Union on May 1. We expressed our support for the Secretary General in bringing the parties to the bargaining table, but expressed concerns regarding some of the issues that remain open: property rights, governance, free movement between Greek and Turkish areas of the island, and the pace of demilitarization of the island.

In particular, we raised questions about the ability of Cypriots to regain property that was seized or to receive fair compensation, how compensation would be funded, the unfairness of asking Greek Cypriots to foot the bill for buying back their own property, the ability of Greek Cypriots to have at least the same rights to acquire property in Turkish neighborhoods as foreigners do.

We stressed the importance of having a central government that has the ability to make decisions, and we expressed concern about limitations on the ability of Cypriots to travel unimpeded to all areas of the island.

While we applauded the plan to reduce the number of troops occupying the island, we expressed the hope that the U.N. troops would remain available to monitor the situation in Cyprus for as long as possible. We are hopeful that as the next round of negotiations take place, Secretary General Annan will do everything possible to ensure that our concerns will be addressed so that the final settlement will be acceptable to all Cypriots and Turks when it goes to the vote on the island.

I congratulate the Federation for honoring the Olympics in a year in which the games will be returning to their birthplace, Greece. The world has truly benefited from the ancient Hellenic tradition of allowing athletic competition to triumph over political differences.

I hope this Greek Independence Day will be a symbol of independence for all enslaved people, and we hope for the reunification of Cyprus and its entrance into the European Union. And, finally, Zeto e eleftheria.

Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget because it is fiscally irresponsible, bad for the economy, and it underfunds homeland security, education, veterans and women.

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

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of a budget resolution is to make the tough choices that will put the budget and the economy on the right track for the future. We do not need budget choices that create tough times for the economy, that are tough for working families, tough for people who cannot find jobs and tough for our children's future.

Once again, the President and his Republican colleagues in the House have presented a budget that is fiscally irresponsible and wrong for the economy. When President Bush took office, the Congressional Budget Office was projecting a $400 billion surplus for this fiscal year 2004. Now they are projecting a deficit of nearly $500 billion, a swing of $900 billion for just this one year. We can see from this chart how projected surpluses have turned into actual deficits so far in this administration.

And the future does not look any better. Three years ago, President Bush told us we were in danger of paying off the national debt too fast. Well, the President and the Republican Congress have certainly taken care of that problem. In 2001, the President said that even if we enacted his tax cuts, we could pay the debt down to $1.2 trillion by 2008. But now they say the debt will rise to $5.6 trillion, a swing of $4.4 trillion as depicted in this chart, 4.4 trillion more debt in 2008.

Mr. Chairman, what has changed in 3 years to cause such a hemorrhage in the budget and such an explosion in the national debt? The administration and its supporters have been quick to blame events beyond their control like 9-11 and the bursting of a high-tech bubble. They have even tried to overrule the experts at the National Bureau of Economic Research about when the recession began. But what they will not admit is that their relentless drive to cut taxes has also played an important role.

We made the same mistakes once before in the 1980s, but at least then we had time to correct our mistakes. We had time to restore the fiscal discipline needed to prepare for the tremendous budget pressures we would face with the retirement of the baby boom generation, but now it may be too late. The retirement of the baby boom generation is upon us, but demographically blind budget policies have left us unprepared for the consequences.

Mr. Chairman, the President keeps telling us that his policies are working to improve the economy; but in the area that matters most to American families, jobs, the facts tell us otherwise. As this chart shows, President Bush is on track to be the first President since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs over the course of his time in office, the only administration in 70 years with a decline in private sector jobs. Three million private sector jobs have been lost on President Bush's watch. When we include public sector jobs, it is a total of 2.2 million jobs lost since President Bush took office.

And what is it that we have to show for 3 years of Bush policies? Just 21,000 jobs were created last month, when we know that we need at least 125,000 jobs created a month just to keep up with the expanding workforce entering the job market. Overall there are 8.2 million unemployed Americans and about 4.6 million additional workers who want a job but are not counted among the unemployed. An additional 4.4 million people work part time because of the weak economy. What is more, this

chart shows that a large portion of people who have become unemployed remain unemployed for over 26 weeks, almost triple the number when this administration took office.

Each week, 80,000 people's unemployment benefits expire, leaving them with no income and no job prospects. Many of them drop out of the labor force and are not counted in the official unemployment rates.

Once again tonight the other side is making optimistic projections about the future. Tonight the majority says their budget will cut the deficit and create jobs. Unfortunately, we know the record of the last 3 years, and that is a record of rosy projections that never come true. As an example, a year ago the administration predicted that its policies would contribute to the creation of almost 2 million new jobs in the second half of 2003. As the chart shows, they fell short by 1.8 million jobs below their forecast. Meanwhile, as this additional chart shows, the typical worker's earnings are barely keeping up with inflation in sharp contrast to the strong growth from 1996 through 2000.

This administration has presided over the greatest average annual decline in household income since the government began keeping those statistics in the 1960s, doubling his father's bad record. The income of the typical household has fallen by about $1,400 during this Bush administration. Also, 3.8 million Americans lost health insurance under this administration, as this final chart illustrates.

Mr. Chairman, this budget is short on solutions, but long on preserving a failed policy that has led to a loss of 2.2 million jobs and a $500 billion deficit, the largest deficit in history. This is a policy we cannot afford. Vote ``no'' on the Republican budget.

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

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

The gentleman referred to the Clinton administration. Under the Clinton-Gore administration, this country created 22 million new jobs. Under the Clinton administration, the deficit was eliminated; and he left office with a substantial surplus and a projected surplus that would continue to grow. And under the Bush policies, this country has lost 2.2 million jobs. We would have to create 200,000 new jobs each month for the next 10 months just to bring this country back to the place it was when President Bush walked into office.

And President Bush has given this country a $500 billion deficit, a burden for our children and our grandchildren.

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

Mr. Speaker, on March 16, 2004 and March 17, 2004 I missed rollcall votes Nos. 58 to 63.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes Nos. 58, 59, and 60. In addition, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes Nos. 61, 62, and 63.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for yielding and for his leadership.

I rise in support of the financial services regulatory relief legislation. This bill is the subject of several years of work and I thank the sponsors, the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) for their hard work.

I especially want to thank them for the inclusion of an amendment that I offered in committee with my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas). This amendment prohibits nonchartering States from unilaterally imposing a discriminatory fee against State-chartered banks from other States. It also strengthens cooperative agreements among the States for supervision of multistate institutions by giving Federal recognition to the cooperative agreements and requiring chartering States to follow them. This language is very important for preserving the vitality of our dual banking system.

As for amendments that will be offered today, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) for his checking amendment. He is a great consumer advocate. I have some concerns about how the amendment will work in practice, and I look forward to working with him on this as the process goes forward.

I also want to indicate my strong support for the Kelly-Toomey amendment. This language tracks legislation that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and I passed on the floor of this Congress earlier this year in the Business Checking Freedom Act.

This language builds on the important modernization of financial services that Congress has worked on in recent years. It lifts the prohibition on the payment of interest on business checking accounts after a 2-year phase-in. During the phase-in, banks may increase sweeps to interest-paying accounts to 24 intervals per month.

The prohibition on interest on both consumer and business accounts was enacted during the Great Depression. At the time it was enacted to limit competitive pressures to pay higher interests that were feared could lead to bank failures. Today given the global nature of financial services, interstate banking and many advances in technology, interest payment limits only distort competition and force businesses to seek out alternative interest bearing opportunities.

The prohibition on paying interest on consumer checking accounts was repealed by Congress more than 20 years ago and has not increased any concern about safety and soundness. Today the House, once again, takes an important step forward in offering this same benefit to the business community.

Importantly, this language will disproportionately benefit small businesses. Small businesses must keep money in checking accounts to meet payrolls and pay expenses. They are less likely to have complex financial arrangements that will allow them to get around interest restrictions.

The legislation also allows the Federal Reserve to pay interest on sterile accounts. These are reserves private banks hold at the Federal Reserve which the Fed can manipulate as a tool of monetary policy. And this provision is endorsed by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

I support the legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Federation of Dodecanese Societies of America and Canada, which is celebrating 56 years of independence for the Dodecanese Islands, which are located in the southeastern part of the Aegean Sea. After five centuries of foreign rule, the Hellenic people of the islands not only survived occupation, but retained their heritage, ethnicity and religion, as well.

The Federation is a link between the many Dodecanese societies in North America and current residents of the Dodecanese Islands of Greece. More than 40,000 people of Dodecanesian descent live in the New York City area and contribute significantly to our community and economy.

The Dodecanese Federation was formed in New York in the 1920s and played a major role in the struggle for the liberation of the Islands. They joined in the celebration when, on February 10, 1947, the Paris Peace Treaty was signed, reuniting the Dodecanese Islands with the Greek mainland. The text of the Treaty states in part, ``Italy hereby cedes to Greece in full sovereignty the Dodecanese Islands indicated thereafter, namely Stampalia, Rhodes, Calki, Scarpanto, Casos, Piscopis, Misiros, Calimnos, Leros, Patmos, Lipsos, Simi, Cos, and Castelorizo, as well as the adjacent islets.'' Greece ratified the Paris Treaty on October 22, 1947; formal reunification occurred on March 7, 1948.

Today, the Federation is devoted to supporting Hellenic-American relations and culture with a broad range of programs. Additionally, many of the Federation's member organizations have educational, cultural, and festival activities that promote and enrich the Hellenic community in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, as the founder and co-chairperson of the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues, I ask that my distinguished colleagues join me in paying tribute to the heroes of the long struggle for Dodecanesian independence. The Federation of Dodecanese Societies of America and Canada deserve our continuing respect, admiration and support.

Zeto E Eleftheria! (Long Live Freedom!)

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the New York Hall of Science and its distinguished leader, Dr. Alan Friedman. On March 18, 2004, the Hall will celebrate Dr. Friedman's twenty years of outstanding service to the New York community. Dr. Friedman is largely responsible for the development of the New York Hall of Science as a destination for visitors and a world class center for the training of science teachers.

Dr. Friedman turned--quite literally--an empty shell of a building into one of the world's most enjoyable centers for science education. Under Dr. Friedman's leadership, the Hall has received national recognition for its efforts to encourage new technologies, to evaluate the effectiveness of informal science teaching and to develop new strategies for training science teachers. This fall, the Hall of Science will open an expansion of its facilities, which will double its exhibition space and allow for increased enrollment in its educational programs.

Dr. Friedman's efforts to make science education fun and interactive have been highly influential in the academic community, and have enriched the lives of a great many young people. At a time when many feel that America's commitment to science education has faltered, Dr. Friedman has been a pioneer in furthering our children's understanding of both the history of science and recent breakthroughs in scientific research.

Indeed, the New York Times editorial page celebrated Dr. Friedman's contributions, saying:

New Yorkers of a certain age will recall the Museum of Science and Industry in the Daily News Building and later in Rockefeller Center. It folded. Boomers will recall the New York Hall of Science at the 1964 World's Fair. That one was shuttered in 1979. Its building languished until 1984, when the city hired the physicist Alan Friedman and pumped in funds to bring it back to life. That he has done, with innovative educational programs and strong links both to city schoolchildren and their teachers.

Dr. Friedman is the recipient of the American Association for the Advancement of Science's AAAS Award for Public Understanding of Science and Technology. He is a Fellow of the AAAS, the New York Academy of Sciences and the Association of Science-Technology Centers.

Alan Friedman truly exemplifies the tradition of civic involvement that makes America the greatest nation in the world. Dr. Friedman and the New York Hall of Science deserve our respect, admiration and support.

Mr. Speaker, I request that my colleagues join me in paying tribute to this wonderful organization and its director, Dr. Alan Friedman.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably delayed and missed rollcall vote No. 55. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye,'' in favor of H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 15, which commends India on its celebration of Republic Day and expresses congressional support for continued strong relations between the United States and India.

As the largest democracy in the world, India has shown a genuine commitment to improving its economic ties to the United States, and the U.S. and India have formally committed to work together to build peace and security in South Asia, increase bilateral trade and investment, meet global environmental challenges, fight disease, and eradicate poverty.

There is no doubt that the close relationship between the U.S. and India is crucial to world stability and to the economic futures of both countries. India's long-term economic potential is tremendous, and the U.S. is already its largest trading and investment partner.

I am hopeful that we will foster an even closer relationship in the coming years by working together to tackle new and existing challenges.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the Pancyprian Association Women's Issues Network (WIN) on the evening of its annual Dinner Dance, and to recognize WIN's 2004 Woman of the Year Award honoree, Ms. Thelma Pieri.

WIN was founded in 1997 to serve the Cyprian-American community, promote the Hellenic Cypriot culture and provide opportunities for future generations of Cyprian women. The organization sponsors health lectures, health fairs, cultural events and breast and cervical cancer screening for women with no health insurance. Additionally, WIN has worked against the Turkish occupation of Cyprus since 1974.

Thelma Pieri was born in Galata, Cyprus on September 28, 1936; she is the daughter of Emilio and Theophanis Michalides. Thelma was educated in Cyprus and graduated from high school in 1954. As a young adult, she fell in love with and married Andreas Pieri. Mr. and Ms. Pieri have three children and nine grandchildren.

In 1967, Andreas and Thelma immigrated to the United States and made their home in Queens, New York. For the Pieri family, the United States has truly been a land of opportunity: with her husband, Thelma owned and operated two successful beauty salons.

Thelma's dedication to community service and the liberation of Cyprus is amply demonstrated by her tireless work for the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association (AHEPA) and the Pancyprian Organization. She served as the chairperson of the Pancyprian Organization's Cultural Division and president of its athletic committee. Furthermore, she has received awards for her community service efforts from, among others, AHEPA, the Queens Borough President, the Pancyprian Organization and the Panhellenic Federation. She has truly given selflessly of her time and talent so as to improve the quality of life in her community. She is one of those rare individuals who can always find the time and energy to do more and give more.

In 1986, Mr. and Ms. Pieri moved to Newport Ritchie, Florida, where Thelma founded the Pancyprian Association of Florida and the Greek School at the St. George Church of Newport Ritchie.

Thelma continues to be a passionate spokesperson for the liberation of Cyprus. ``I wish to return to Greece, where my children live, and participate in their lives and that of my grandchildren,'' Thelma recently remarked. ``I work for the freedom of Cyprus and my heart is bleeding when I see my beautiful island under Turkish occupation. I will continue to work and fight until I see the sun set on a free, united Cyprus.''

Thelma Pieri truly exemplifies the tradition of community involvement that makes America the greatest nation in the world. On behalf of the residents of the Fourteenth Congressional District of New York, I would like to extend to Ms. Pieri and the Women's Issues Network my continuing respect, admiration and support.

Mr. Speaker, I request that my colleagues join me in paying tribute to this wonderful organization and its honoree, Thelma Pieri.

Mr. Speaker, I fully support this extension for the 9/ 11 commission. In fact, I would support giving it any and all time and cooperation it needs to get to the bottom of 9/11.

Sixty days is but a bare minimum--but it is absolutely necessary. This extension is nice, White House cooperation would be better. A thorough final report would bolster our national security and bring a measure of understanding and closure to Americans, New Yorkers, and, most importantly, the victims' loved ones. Unfortunately, that effort has been hampered by an uncooperative White House.

The latest manifestation, as reported in today's New York Times, is severe restrictions on interviews with key 9/11 players.

I ask unanimous consent to put this in the Record.

Mr. Speaker we need White House cooperation now. And if they continue to refuse to give it, we should demand to know why.

Mr. Speaker, it's too important for this country, for my city and its people not to get this report done right. This is too important an issue for the White House to play hid and seek with. I hope this extension will trigger full cooperation.

[From the New York Times, Mar. 3, 2004]

9/11 Panel Rejects White House Limits on Interviews

(By Philip Shenon)

Washington, Mar. 2.--The independent commission

investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is refusing to accept

strict conditions from the White House for interviews with

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and is renewing

its request that Mr. Bush's national security adviser testify

in public, commission members said Tuesday.

The panel members, interviewed after a private meeting on

Tuesday, said the commission had decided for now to reject a

White House request that the interview with Mr. Bush be

limited to one hour and that the questioners be only the

panel's chairman and vice chairman.

The members said the commission had also decided to

continue to press the national security adviser, Condoleezza

Rice, to reconsider her refusal to testify at a public

hearing. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are expected to be asked

about how they had reacted to intelligence reports before

Sept. 11, 2001, suggesting that Al Qaeda might be planning a

large attack. Panel members want to ask Ms. Rice the same

questions in public.

``We have held firm in saying that the conditions set by

the president and vice president and Dr. Rice are nog good

enough,'' said Timothy J. Roemer, a former Indiana

congressman who is one of five Democrats on the 10-member

commission.

Mr. Roemer said that former President Bill Clinton and

former Vice President Al Gore had agreed to meet privately

with the full bipartisan commission, and that Samuel R.

Berger, Ms. Rice's predecessor, would testify in public.

``It's very important that we treat both the Bush and the

Clinton administration the same,'' he said.

The White House has declined to discuss details of the

limitations it has sought on the interviews with Mr. Bush and

Mr. Cheney but has said the administration wants to cooperate

fully with the commission, known formally as the National

Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

A spokesman for the National Security Council, Sean

McCormack, said Tuesday that the White House believed it

would be inappropriate for Ms. Rice to appear at a public

hearing as a matter of legal precedent. ``White House staff

have not testified before legislative bodies,'' Mr. McCormack

said. ``This is not a matter of Dr. Rice's preferences.''

Even as panel members warned of a possible confrontation

with the White House, there was fresh evidence that the

commission had averted a showdown on Capitol Hill. Speaker J.

Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, said Tuesday that he

planned to shepherd a bill granting the panel a 60-day

extension for its final report. Mr. Hastert had vowed to

block the extension.

Mr. Hastert met Tuesday with the commission's chairman,

Thomas H. Kean, a Republican and a former governor of New

Jersey, and the vice chairman, Lee H. Hamilton, another

former Democratic congressman from Indiana, and said at a

news conference later that he would try to secure House

approval of the extension, a proposal already accepted in

the Senate.

With the extension, the commission would have until July 26

for its final report. The panel had warned that if it was

held to its original deadline of May 27, as mandated by

Congress, it would be unable to complete a full investigation

and would have to curtail public hearings.

Mr. Hastert denied suggestions from Congressional Democrats

that he had tried to block the extension as a favor to the

White House, given Republican fears that the report might

embarrass President Bush during his re-election campaign. Mr.

Hastert said he had no direction from the White House.

``I didn't want it to become a political football,'' Mr.

Hastert said of his initial opposition to the extension,

adding that he had been chagrined when the White House said

in February that it would back the extension.

Referring to the commission, Mr. Hastert said he had

changed his mind last week ``after it became apparent that

they couldn't get their work done.''

Commission officials said that if the White House continued

to insist on limitations on the interviews with Mr. Bush and

Mr. Cheney, there might be little that the panel could do to

force the issue and that the commission might have to accept

the White House's terms.

And they said that despite internal conversation about the

possibility of issuing a subpoena for Ms. Rice's public

testimony, that move was unlikely. Ms. Rice provided several

hours of private testimony last month and has suggested that

she is willing to answer additional questions behind closed

doors.

The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue and so many others. I really rise in strong opposition to this bill and in support of the Lofgren amendment.

In a country in which up to two-thirds of battered women are turned away from shelters for lack of space, in no way does this bill combat domestic violence. But no one should be naive enough to think that this bill has anything to do with domestic violence. Instead, this is another step down the slippery slope toward granting personage to fetuses. This sets up an untenable situation in which a fetus' rights and interests are at odds with its mother.

To make the fetus a person would inject a layer of legal complexibility that would make every pregnant woman's ordinary decisions perilous, opening her medical and other choices to second- guessing liability or even criminal charges. This bill criminalizes actions that can occur at the very earliest phases of pregnancy, making every miscarriage subject to an investigation.

Roughly 20 to 25 percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Usually there is a genetic reason, but sometimes there is another cause. Studies show that miscarriages can occur because of excessive coffee drinking, smoking, exposure to chemicals, illness, stress or trauma during an accident. Since culpability accrues whether the perpetrator knows the woman is pregnant or not, a wide variety of relatively innocent actions could lead to charges.

If someone comes to work, for example, with German measles, knowing that they could infect a fellow worker, could they be guilty of manslaughter? Will Starbucks have to post signs advising pregnant women that they cannot buy more than two cups of coffee per day? Will car manufacturers face imprisonment for miscarriages caused by steering wheels, seat belts or air bags? Will airlines face criminal charges if they permit pregnant women to fly? Will bodega owners be charged for selling pregnant women cigarettes?

If this bill is really about violence against pregnant women, then we should pass the Lofgren amendment and increase penalties against people who harm a pregnant woman. Let us step off the slippery slope and reserve personage to the born.

This bill is also another chipping away at a woman's right to choose. This body recently passed the so-called partial-birth abortion ban, which ignored the health and life of a woman. Now this bill before us today, once again, ignores the health and life of a woman.

I have kept a scorecard of antichoice actions since the Republican majority took over in 1995. If this bill passes today, it will mark the 202nd action against a woman's right to choose, which is exactly what this bill is intended to do. We heard it straight from Senator Hatch's mouth last July when he commented on this bill: ``They say it undermines abortion rights. It does. But that is irrelevant.''

It is insulting that the authors of this legislation would use violence against women as a vehicle to attack a woman's right to choose.

Let me say it again, this bill does nothing to address the violence against women, but the Lofgren substitute does. The Lofgren substitute would severely punish crimes against pregnant women without tangling juries and prosecutors in the abortion debate. It creates a separate Federal offense for crimes against pregnant women and carries penalties of 20 years in prison to a maximum life sentence for causing termination of a woman's pregnancy. The Lofgren amendment protects pregnant women without limiting their very basic rights and without defining the Constitution to establish fetal personage.

Please vote in favor of the Lofgren amendment, which will be up shortly, and no to this underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for her leadership on this issue and so many others and for her yielding me this time.

I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill and in support of the Lofgren amendment, which will be on the floor tomorrow.

Over the past 5 months, this body has dealt reproductive rights and women's health a one-two punch, first with the passage of the so-called partial birth abortion ban, which ignores the health and life of the woman, and now with this bill, which again ignores the health and life of the woman.

I have kept a scorecard of the antichoice action since the Republican majority took over in 1995, and if this rule and its underlying bill pass, it will mark the 202nd action against a woman's right to choose, which is exactly what this bill is intended to do.

According to this bill, anyone could be a murderer since no intent to harm the fetus is required. So in other words, if a pregnant woman is on an airline and crashes, is the airline now liable for two deaths? If a woman is working out in a gym with a trainer and miscarries, is the trainer a murderer? Pregnant women will become a liability for stores, gyms, and other businesses, and their freedom to perform daily tasks will be restricted.

This bill is not a domestic violence bill, and it does absolutely nothing to protect women who are victims of domestic violence. What this bill does is for the first time in Federal law, this bill, the underlying bill, will give a fertilized egg the same legal recognition and standing as a man or a woman. Under this bill a criminal could avoid stiffer penalties as long as he causes no harm to the fetus even though the pregnant woman might be brutally beaten and victimized.

It is insulting that the authors of this legislation would use violence against women as the vehicle to attack a woman's right to choose, which is what this bill is really about, whittling away, piece by piece, legislation by legislation, a woman's right to choose. This bill does absolutely nothing to address the violence against women, but the Lofgren amendment, which will be on the floor tomorrow, does, and the Lofgren substitute would severely punish crimes against pregnant women without tangling juries and prosecutors in the abortion issue. The Lofgren

amendment protects pregnant women without limiting their very basic rights and without redefining the Constitution to establish fetal personhood.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bill and support the Lofgren amendment and substitute tomorrow.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleague and cosponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), in support of the Energy Efficient Housing Technical Correction Act.

This legislation will provide incentives for builders to include environmentally friendly additions to multi-family housing developments, by making projects eligible for 20 percent more FHA mortgage insurance. This is a noncontroversial, technical fix that corrects an oversight in the legislation enacted in the 107th Congress. This legislation is also included in the comprehensive energy bill where it received bipartisan, bicameral support.

Enactment of H.R. 3724 will allow increases in the maximum mortgage limits for FHA insurance for multi-family housing projects that choose to install solar energy systems or residential energy conservation measures. Currently, housing projects with five or fewer units are permitted FHA insurance in amounts up to 20 percent higher than the standard limit for the purpose of making environmental improvements. This legislation on the floor today allows multi-family developments with more than five units to be eligible for this same higher FHA coverage for environmental improvements. Higher FHA coverage was allowed for environmental improvements for multi-family housing prior to the 107th Congress when it was inadvertently deleted.

It only makes sense that projects with more than five units, where the environmental benefits are greater, should be eligible for the extra FHA insurance.

My colleagues who work on housing and environmental issues know that including solar energy systems and conservation measures can add significant building costs. This legislation will provide an important incentive for builders to make these additional investments that benefit their residents and communities as a whole.

It is my hope that this legislation will become law as soon as possible so that its benefits can begin to flow into the community. Whether Members represent urban, suburban or rural districts, I am certain that the benefits of this legislation will potentially be felt by many of our constituents.

Finally I want to thank the leadership of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and also my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for his work on this issue. It is my pleasure to work on many important environmental causes with him. And I appreciate his dedication to clean air, clean water, and conservation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation and urge a yes vote from my colleagues.

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