Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise reluctantly in support of this rescue package. I have great reservations about this legislation, but after looking at the situation carefully, reviewing the facts, and speaking with economists whose views and expertise I value, I believe that the threat to our credit markets is both real and urgent.

Is the danger severe enough to warrant supporting a bill about which I have strenuous reservations? I believe so.

In the past, I have been very skeptical of proposals brought to us by this administration with the warning that the situation was dire, that we could not afford to be more deliberate, and that we must give the administration broad new powers. I opposed the USA PATRIOT Act, the recent FISA legislation, and the vote to authorize the war in Iraq. In each instance, we were told that the danger was great and imminent. The administration went so far as to warn of a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Unfortunately, these tactics worked, and Congress was stampeded into doing the wrong thing. In each case, it was not easy to stand in the way of the stampede, but, in my judgment, after examining all the known facts, it was the right and necessary thing to do.

In this case, the administration should have seen this crisis coming years ago. Many of us warned that the administration's deregulation policies were leading us toward disaster, but so long as unprecedented profits were rolling in, the voices of caution were ignored.

The near-religious belief that unrestrained markets would bring nothing but good times, that real estate prices would spiral upward forever, that financial instruments that even the directors of the firms selling them did not understand, would always bring prosperity, permeated thinking in government and out.

History should have taught us otherwise. Our current situation proves otherwise.

When the final accounting came, the boom was revealed for what it was: history's largest and most costly ponzi scheme.

Finally, the administration acted--belatedly and arrogantly. Only a week ago, they told us that the situation was dire, that they needed $700 billion--more even than the President's Iraq adventure has cost so far--and presented us with a three page proposal that said essentially, ``Give the Treasury Secretary a free hand with nearly a trillion dollars, make sure no one can go to court to stop him if he gets out of hand, forget any oversight or transparency, don't worry about paying for it, don't do anything to help the middle class, then buzz off.''

In defense of that request, they said we should just trust them--the same people who got us into this crisis--with power even the Vice President only dreams of.

As the old joke goes: how do you say ``drop dead'' in Washington? ``Trust me.'' Only this time, it's not funny.

The legislation before us today is not very attractive, but it is greatly improved from the President's proposal. The bill has increased transparency. It leaves available court remedies, although not as many as I would want. It partially repays the taxpayers by providing for acquiring an equity stake in participating firms. It does have real oversight.

I am deeply disappointed that some very important provisions for which I fought were not included.

The package should have been paid for with a repeal of tax breaks on the wealthy, and of giveaway tax benefits for oil companies and other big corporations and for the industry that caused this mess. The shareholders should have borne more of the cost of this package. They are the ones who profited, and they are the ones who should pay. I do not believe in privatizing profits while socializing risk. That's not capitalism, that's lemon socialism--the people get only the lemons.

It is clear that the taxpayers will not be on the hook for the full $700 billion authorized, because the securities that will be acquired are not as worthless as the market now assumes, although we do not know how much they are really worth.

I believe that the Bankruptcy Code should have been fixed so that families with predatory

or subprime mortgages could restructure their mortgages. Mortgages are the only secured debts in bankruptcy that cannot be restructured. Investors can do it with their properties; The Senator from Arizona [Senator McCain] can do it with six of his seven houses; you can do it with airplanes, yachts, steel plants, or anything else. The only exception is the family home. That's wrong, and we should have fixed it in this bill.

We need comprehensive regulatory reform in order to stave off the next financial catastrophe, and we need a President and regulators willing to enforce the laws we have on the books. The bill does not do that, but the next Congress must enact comprehensive regulatory reform. We need to take away from this experience the lesson I had thought the nation learned in 1929. Sound regulation in markets is necessary to maintain stability.

So, as I said, I am angry that we are in a situation we could and should have avoided, and I am disappointed with the bill we are voting on today. I am especially angry that we are now at a point where, as unpopular as this is--and my constituents have told me that they do not like this any more than I do--we must act.

The crisis is real and immediate. If the credit markets freeze, as they started to do last week, and as we are warned by almost all credible economists they will if we do not act, we will face a calamity. All economic activity dependent on credit will cease. Businesses will not get loans to expand or to meet their payrolls. Thousands of banks will fail, ATM machines will dispense no funds, credit cards will be worthless, millions will be thrown out of work, and we could face a repeat of the Great Depression of the 1930s. We cannot be certain this bill will stave off this calamity, but it might. When faced with a choice between a certainty of catastrophe and a possibility of averting a catastrophe, the choice is clear.

Madam Speaker, I reluctantly support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, due to official business in New York related to the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, I was unable to travel to Washington,

DC. As a result, I missed votes on September 11, 2008. I ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 585 approving the Journal; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 586 commemorating the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 587 restoring the Highway Trust Fund balance; and ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 588 motion to adjourn.

I thank the gentleman.

I thank the distinguished majority leader and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). Under their leadership, the House passed the ADA Amendments Act in June by an overwhelming vote of 402-17.

The Senate, under the leadership of Senators Harkin and Hatch, has taken up our bipartisan call to restore the promise of the ADA and has passed a nearly identical bill, S. 3406.

Like the House bill, S. 3406 overturns Supreme Court decisions that have narrowed the scope of protection under the ADA. These decisions have created a catch-22, in which an individual who is able to lessen the adverse impact of an impairment by use of a mitigating measure like medicine or a hearing aid can be fired from a job or otherwise face discrimination on the basis of that impairment and yet not be considered sufficiently disabled to be protected by the ADA. Congress never intended such an absurd result.

Like the House bill, S. 3406 cures this problem by prohibiting courts from considering ``mitigating measures''--things like medicine, prosthetic devices, hearing aids, or the body's own compensation and ability to adapt--when determining whether an individual is disabled. On this important point, S. 3406 retains the exact same language as

Madam Speaker, on September 11, 2001, America and the world watched in horror as our Nation came under ruthless attack. At the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon, thousands were killed by the cowardly deeds of terrorists. We heard the stories of those heroic passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93 who gave their lives so that they might save the lives of others by thwarting an attack on the United States Capitol.

In lower Manhattan, part of my congressional district, New York's finest and bravest rushed to the disaster site. In the days and weeks after, countless Americans would also come to New York to offer their assistance. Nearly 3,000 people were killed at the World Trade Center, and countless others were wounded.

Since then, we have made tremendous progress in rebuilding. But we still have work left to do. One of our greatest national responsibilities right now is to aid those people who are still suffering from 9/11--our first responders and rescue workers, local area workers, residents, students, and others who have become sick from the environmental aftermath of 9/11.

When the buildings of the World Trade Center came crumbling down, nearly half a million pounds of lead, asbestos, glass fibers, steel, and concrete formed a massive cloud of toxic dust and smoke that blanketed parts of New York City and New Jersey. Fires burned for months, emitting a whole host of deadly substances. Scientists have said that this dust was as caustic as Drain-o, and that the air quality was worse than during the Kuwaiti oil fires.

From the beginning, we warned that the air wasn't safe and that our courageous first responders were not being afforded the proper protection from dangerous toxins as they were toiling on the pile to rebuild. We spent years working to try to convince public officials that the asbestos, fiberglass and other toxins had travelled far and settled into the interiors of residences, workplaces and schools, and that a proper testing and cleanup program was required to eliminate the health risks to area residents, workers and students. We demanded that the Federal Government acknowledge the fact, supported by a mountain of peer-reviewed research, that thousands of our Nation's citizens are today sick from 9/11 and that many more could become sick in the future. We explained to whoever would listen that our 9/11 heroes were struggling to pay health care costs because they could no longer work and no longer had health insurance, and we have argued vigorously that the Federal response to date has been dangerously limited, piecemeal and unstable.

Thankfully, we have achieved a much more widespread recognition of many of these problems. Now, 7 years after the attacks, it is imperative that Congress do what is right for our heroes and our living victims by passing H.R. 6594, the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.

Though the devastating 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center occurred within the bounds of my congressional district, we know that these were really attacks on our Nation as a whole--figuratively and literally. Every member in New York's downstate delegation represents hundreds, if not thousands, of people who live, work, attend school, or were otherwise present in the affected areas, and were exposed to a toxic brew of contamination. Indeed, every member in this House represents a State that has people in the World Trade Center Health Registry who were exposed and are concerned about their health.

And as this is unquestionably a national problem, it has always required a national response. But despite our sustained efforts to get the Administration to develop a comprehensive plan to deal with this growing public health problem that they themselves now finally acknowledge, the New York delegation has instead found itself, year after year, coming to Congress with its ``hat in hand'' to test its luck at the annual appropriations process. Thankfully, with the outstanding bipartisan

support of my colleagues for that funding, we have had some key successes. But this is simply no longer a tenable course of action.

Passage of the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act would mark an end to this unpredictable approach and ensure that a consistent source of funding is available to monitor, and if necessary, treat, the thousands of first responders, community members, and others already affected by WTC-related illnesses as well as those who are most likely to become sick in the future. And it would make sure that no matter where an affected individual were to live in the future, he or she could get care. Building on the expertise of the existing Centers of Excellence, the bill would fill key gaps in how we are currently providing treatment and monitoring. And finally, this legislation would provide an opportunity for compensation for economic damages and losses by reopening the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund.

On this anniversary of one of the most devastating days in our national consciousness, I thank members of Congress and the American people for coming to our aid after September 11th and in the years that followed. And once again, I implore you to pass the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.

Madam Speaker, today, I joined Rep. Carolyn Maloney and my colleagues from New York in introducing a revised version of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.

Working closely with the AFL-CIO, the City of New York, the local community, the House Leadership, and the Committees of jurisdiction we have revised the bill to reduce the overall cost of the bill while ensuring that it will provide a comprehensive, long term solution to problems faced by first responders, area residents, workers, students, and others in the

aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.

I am pleased that we are making progress on this legislation, and I appreciate all of the work that has gone into the bill by all of the parties involved. I particularly want to thank Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic Leadership for helping to coordinate and focus our efforts. I am aware that more work remains to further refine the bill, but we are well on our way to finalizing an excellent piece of legislation that will help thousands of victims of the September 11 attacks. I am hopeful that Congress will be able to act swiftly to move this bill by the seventh anniversary of the attacks, and that the bill will be signed into law before the end of this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution honoring the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary. I would like to thank

Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, and the rest of my colleagues on the Education and Labor Committee for bringing this resolution to the floor.

Founded in 1958, Ailey has become widely recognized as one of the world's premier modern dance companies. In its 50-year history, Ailey has performed for an estimated 21 million people in 71 countries on six continents. The troupe's signature work, ``Revelations,'' has been seen by more people across the globe than any other work of dance.

Alvin Ailey was born into an impoverished childhood in the small, segregated town of Rogers, Texas. Dedicated to promoting the uniqueness of the African-American cultural experience, Ailey began offering opportunities to black dancers when there were few. ``Revelations,'' which draws upon the influences of black spirituals, gospel music, and blues, epitomizes the universality of art that Ailey sought to explore. Of this groundbreaking work, he said: ``Its roots are in American Negro culture, which is part of the whole country's heritage. The dance speaks to everyone.''

By 1963, the troupe had begun welcoming dancers of diverse ethnicities and backgrounds, and translating their experiences into some of the most riveting works of dance of the 20th century. The company now performs works by a wide range of choreographers, both emerging and established, from across the globe, totaling more than 200 works by over 70 choreographers.

In 1982, Alvin Ailey received the United Nations Peace Medal, and in 2001, President George W. Bush recognized the Ailey and Artistic Director Judith Jamison with the National Medal of Arts, making the Ailey the first dance company to be honored with this award.

Ailey continues to make a lasting impact in the dance world through its arts in education and community programs, which provide more than 100,000 young people from diverse cultural, social, and economic backgrounds the opportunity to explore their creative potential, not only in New York, but in cities throughout the United States. Ailey II, the junior company, reaches more than 69,000 people each year, and brings its inspiring performances to smaller communities across North America.

I am proud that Ailey calls my congressional district in New York City home, and has made the Joan Weill Center for Dance the largest facility dedicated exclusively to dance in the United States.

I wish to thank Ailey for all it has done to break cultural barriers through the arts. I especially want to thank Judith Jamison, Artistic Director, and Sharon Gersten Luckman, Executive Director, who keep Alvin Ailey's artistic and social vision alive today.

I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution congratulating the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater for its 50 years as a cultural ambassador to the world, and thanking them for their outstanding service to future generations of artists.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished majority leader and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) as well as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee for their leadership on this important legislation.

This bill would help to restore the Americans with Disabilities Act to its rightful place among this Nation's great civil rights laws.

This legislation is long overdue. Countless Americans with disabilities have already been deprived of the opportunity to prove that they have been victims of discrimination, that they are qualified for a job, or that a reasonable accommodation would afford them an opportunity to participate fully at work and in community life.

This bill fixes the absurd Catch-22 created by the Supreme Court in which an individual can face discrimination on the basis of an actual past or perceived disability and yet not be considered sufficiently disabled to be protected against that discrimination by the ADA. That was never Congress' intent, and this bill cures this problem.

Some of my colleagues from across the aisle have raised concerns that this bill might cover minor or trivial conditions. They worry about covering stomachaches, the common cold, mild seasonal allergies, or even a hangnail. I have yet to see a case where the ADA covered an individual with a hangnail. But I have seen scores of cases where the ADA was construed not to cover individuals with cancer, epilepsy, diabetes, severe intellectual impairment, HIV, muscular dystrophy, and multiple sclerosis.

These people have too often been excluded because their impairment, however serious or debilitating, was mischaracterized by the courts as temporary or its impact considered too short-lived and not permanent enough.

That's what happened to Mary Ann Pimental, a nurse with breast cancer who challenged her employer's failure to rehire her into her position when she returned from treatment. Ms. Pimental was told by the court that her cancer was not a disability and that she was not covered by the ADA. The court recognized that ``there is no question that her cancer has dramatically affected her life, and that the associated impairment has been real and extraordinarily difficult for her and her family.'' Yet the court still denied her coverage because it characterized the impact of her cancer ``short-lived''--meaning that it ``did not have a substantial lasting effect'' on her.

Mary Ann Pimental died as a result of her breast cancer 4 months after the court issued its decision. I am sure that her husband and two children disagreed with the court that her cancer was short-lived and not sufficiently permanent.

This bill ensures that individuals like Mary Ann Pimental are covered by the law when they need it. The bill requires the courts--and the Federal agencies providing expert guidance--to lower the burden for obtaining coverage under this landmark civil rights law. This new standard is not onerous and is meant to reduce needless litigation over the threshold question of coverage.

It is our sincere hope that, with the passage of this bill, we will finally be able to focus on the important questions: Is an individual qualified? Might a reasonable accommodation afford that person the same opportunities that his or her neighbors enjoy?

I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in voting for passage of H.R. 3195 as reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. I thank everyone associated with its passage.

Madam Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished majority leader and gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for their leadership on this important legislation.

H.R. 3195 would help to restore the Americans with Disabilities Act to its rightful place among this Nation's great civil rights laws.

This legislation is necessary to correct Supreme Court decisions that have created an absurd Catch-22 in which an individual can face discrimination on the basis of an actual, past, or perceived disability and yet not be considered sufficiently disabled to be protected against that discrimination by the ADA. That was never Congress's intent, and H.R. 3195 cures this problem.

H.R. 3195 lowers the burden of proving that one is disabled enough to qualify for coverage. It does this by directing courts to read the definition broadly, as is appropriate for remedial civil rights legislation. It also redefines the term ``substantially limits,'' which was restrictively interpreted by the courts to set a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled. An individual now must show that his or her impairment ``materially restricts'' performance of major life activities. While the impact of the impairment must still be important, it need not severely or significantly restrict one's ability to engage in those activities central to most people's daily lives, including working.

Under this new standard, for example, it should be considered a material restriction if an individual is disqualified from his or her job of choice because of an impairment. An individual should not need to prove that he or she is unable to perform a broad class or range of jobs. We fully expect that the courts, and the Federal agencies providing expert guidance, will revisit prior rulings and guidance and adjust the burden of proving the requisite ``material'' limitation to qualify for coverage.

This legislation is long overdue. Countless Americans with disabilities have already been deprived of the opportunity to prove that they have been victims of discrimination, that they are qualified for a job, or that a reasonable accommodation would afford them an opportunity to participate fully at work and in community life.

Some of my colleagues from across the aisle have raised concerns that this bill would cover ``minor'' or ``trivial'' conditions. They worry about covering ``stomach aches, the common cold, mild seasonal allergies, or even a hangnail.''

I have yet to see a case where the ADA covered an individual with a hangnail. But I have seen scores of cases where the ADA was construed not to cover individuals with cancer, epilepsy, diabetes, severe intellectual impairment, HIV, muscular dystrophy, and multiple sclerosis.

These people have too often been excluded because their impairment, however serious or debilitating, was mis-characterized by the courts as temporary, or its impact considered too short-lived and not permanent enough--although it was serious enough to cost them the job.

That's what happened to Mary Ann Pimental, a nurse who was diagnosed with breast cancer after being promoted at her job. Mrs. Pimental had a mastectomy and underwent chemotherapy and radiation therapy. She suffered radiation burns and premature menopause. She had difficulty concentrating, and experienced extreme fatigue and shortness of breath. And when she felt well enough to return to work, she discovered that her job was gone and the only position available for her was part-time, with reduced benefits.

When Ms. Pimental challenged her employer's failure to rehire her into a better position, the court told her that her breast cancer was not a disability and that she was not covered by the ADA. The court recognized the ``terrible effect the cancer had upon'' her and even said that ``there is no question that her cancer has dramatically affected her life, and that the associated impairment has been real and extraordinarily difficult for her and her family.''

Yet the court still denied her coverage under the ADA because it characterized the impact of her cancer as ``short-lived''--meaning that it ``did not have a substantial and lasting effect'' on her.

Mary Ann Pimental died as a result of her breast cancer 4 months after the court issued its decision. I am sure that her husband and two children disagree with the court's characterization of her cancer as ``short-lived,'' and not sufficiently permanent.

This House should also disagree--and does--as is shown by the broad bipartisan support for H.R. 3195.

H.R. 3195 ensures that individuals like Mary Ann Pimental are covered by the law when they need it. It directs the courts to interpret the definition of disability broadly, as is appropriate for remedial civil rights legislation. H.R. 3195 requires the courts--and the Federal agencies providing expert guidance--to lower the burden for obtaining coverage under this landmark civil rights law. This new standard is not onerous, and is meant to reduce needless litigation over the threshold question of coverage.

It is our sincere hope that, with less battling over who is or is not disabled, we will finally be able to focus on the important questions-- is an individual qualified? And might a reasonable accommodation afford that person the same opportunities that his or her neighbors enjoy.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for passage of H.R. 3195, as reported unanimously by the House Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished majority leader and gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for their leadership on this important legislation.

H.R. 3195 would help to restore the Americans with Disabilities Act to its rightful place among this Nation's great civil rights laws.

This legislation is necessary to correct Supreme Court decisions that have created an absurd catch-22 in which an individual can face discrimination on the basis of an actual, past, or perceived disability and yet not be considered sufficiently disabled to be protected against that discrimination by the ADA. That was never Congress's intent, and H.R. 3195 cures this problem.

H.R. 3195 lowers the burden of proving that one is disabled enough to qualify for coverage. It does this by directing courts to read the definition broadly, as is appropriate for remedial civil rights legislation. It also redefines the term ``substantially limits,'' which was restrictively interpreted by the courts to set a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled. An individual now must show that his or her impairment ``materially restricts'' performance of major life activities. While the impact of the impairment must still be important, it need not severely or significantly restrict one's ability to engage in those activities central to most people's daily lives, including working.

Under this new standard, for example, it should be considered a material restriction if an individual is disqualified from his or her job of choice because of an impairment. An individual should not need to prove that he or she is unable to perform a broad class or range of jobs. We fully expect that the courts, and the federal agencies providing expert guidance, will revisit prior rulings and guidance and adjust the burden of proving the requisite ``material'' limitation to qualify for coverage.

This legislation is long overdue. Countless Americans with disabilities have already been deprived of the opportunity to prove that they have been victims of discrimination, that they are qualified for a job, or that a reasonable accommodation would afford them an opportunity to participate fully at work and in community life.

Some of my colleagues from across the aisle have raised concerns that this bill would cover ``minor'' or ``trivial'' conditions. They worry about covering ``stomach aches, the common cold, mild seasonal allergies, or even a hangnail.''

I have yet to see a case where the ADA covered an individual with a hangnail. But I have seen scores of cases where the ADA was construed not to cover individuals with cancer, epilepsy, diabetes, severe intellectual impairment, HIV, muscular dystrophy, and multiple sclerosis.

These people have too often been excluded because their impairment, however serious or debilitating, was mis-characterized by the courts as temporary, or its impact considered too short-lived and not permanent enough--although it was serious enough to cost them the job.

That's what happened to Mary Ann Pimental, a nurse who was diagnosed with breast cancer after being promoted at her job. Mrs. Pimental had a mastectomy and underwent chemotherapy and radiation therapy. She suffered radiation burns and premature menopause. She had difficulty concentrating, and experienced extreme fatigue and shortness of breath. And when she felt well enough to return to work, she discovered that her job was gone and the only position available for her was part-time, with reduced benefits.

When Ms. Pimental challenged her employer's failure to rehire her into a better position, the court told her that her breast cancer was not a disability and that she was not covered by the ADA. The court recognized the ``terrible effect the cancer had upon'' her and even said that ``there is no question that her cancer has dramatically affected her life, and that the associated impairment has been real and extraordinarily difficult for her and her family.''

Yet the court still denied her coverage under the ADA because it characterized the impact of her cancer as ``short-lived''--meaning that it ``did not have a substantial and lasting effect'' on her.

Mary Ann Pimental died as a result of her breast cancer 4 months after the court issued its decision. I am sure that her husband and two children disagree with the court's characterization of her cancer as ``short-lived,'' and not sufficiently permanent.

This House should also disagree--and does--as is shown by the broad bipartisan support for H.R. 3195.

H.R. 3195 ensures that individuals like Mary Ann Pimental are covered by the law when they need it. It directs the courts to interpret the definition of disability broadly, as is appropriate for remedial civil rights to legislation. H.R. 3195 requires the courts--and the federal agencies providing expert guidance--to lower the burden for obtaining coverage under this landmark civil rights law. This new standard is not onerous, and is meant to reduce needless litigation over the threshold question of coverage.

It is our sincere hope that, with less battling over who is or is not disabled, we will finally be able to focus on the important questions-- is an individual qualified? And might a reasonable accommodation afford that person the same opportunities that his or her neighbors enjoy.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for passage of H.R. 3195, as reported unanimously by the House Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I rise it support of this legislation which is a simple measure the House can take to help protect our troops from undue financial hardship. We constantly receive stern lectures about the importance of supporting the troops. But supporting the troops is more than just wearing a flag pin, or sticking a yellow ribbon on your car, or impugning the patriotism of your political opponents.

Supporting the troops should entail some real benefit for those troops when they need our help. As President Lincoln put it so well, to ``care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.'' Perhaps taking proper care of the wounded at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, or providing them with suitable armor, or providing them with assistance after they return home would be a good place to start.

Here we have the opportunity to help a small number of veterans, estimated at 2,000 to 2,500, by lifting what amounts to a costly and burdensome paperwork burden. According to the Republican witness in the Judiciary Committee, this bill is ``targeted, specific, and quite modest.''

Will it allow these veterans to commit fraud? No. Creditors, the courts, the trustees, and the Department of Justice have ample tools at their disposal to deal with anyone trying to game the system. The case can still be dismissed for abuse based on the totality of the circumstances, the court can still deny or revoke the debtor's discharge of debts, the military could revoke the debtor's security clearance, and the criminal code provides for fines and imprisonment of up to five years.

The means test is not stopping fraud. The Bush Justice Department, which administers it, has reported that less than half a percent of all cases are dismissed based on the means test.

The form used to implement the means test has 57 separate sections. It takes a pro se debtor approximately 10 to 12 hours, and it rivals IRS form 1040 in complexity. I challenge my colleagues to fill it out.

So today members have real choice. You can vote to support the troops or you can vote to support the big banks. It is a pretty clear choice. I urge my colleagues to support the troops.

Madam Speaker, in order to uphold the principle of the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution, we must reject this bill. This bill limits the courts hearing lawsuits alleging illegal wiretapping, to considering only whether the telecom companies received a ``written request or directive indicating that the activity was authorized by the President and determined to be lawful,'' not whether that request was actually lawful or that telecom companies knew that it was unlawful.

The bill is a fig leaf granting blanket immunity to the telecom companies for possibly illegal acts without allowing the courts to consider the facts or the law. It denies people whose rights are violated their fair day in court, and it denies the American people the right to have the actions of this administration subjected to fair and independent scrutiny.

Even the court's limited review will remain secret. The lawsuits will be dismissed, but the basis for that dismissal that the defendants were innocent of misconduct or that they were guilty, but that Congress commands their immunity, must remain secret.

The constitutionality of the immunity granted by this bill is very questionable. As Judge Walker put it in the AT&T case, ``AT&T's alleged actions here violate the constitutional rights clearly established in the Keith decision. Moreover, because the very action in question has previously been held unlawful, AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal.''

I would hope that the courts will find that because the constitutional rights of Americans have been violated, Congress' attempt to prevent court review is unconstitutional. I regret we may today abandon the Constitution's protections and insulate lawless behavior from legal scrutiny.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.

Madam Speaker, Members of the House must decide today whether to uphold the rule of low and the supremacy of the Constitution or whether to protect and reward the lawless behavior of the administration and of the telecommunications companies that participated in its clearly illegal program of spying on innocent Americans.

This bill limits the courts hearing lawsuits alleging illegal wiretapping to consider only whether the telecom companies received a ``written request or directive . . . indicating that the activity was [ ] authorized by the President; and [ ] determined to be lawful''--not whether the request was actually lawful or whether the telecom companies knew that it was unlawful.

The bill is a fig-leaf, granting blanket immunity to the telecom companies for illegal acts without allowing the courts to consider the facts or the law. It denies people whose rights were violated their fair day in court, and it denies the American people their right to have the actions of the administration subjected to fair and independent scrutiny.

Even the courts' limited review will remain secret. The lawsuits will be dismissed, but the basis for the dismissal--that the defendants were innocent of misconduct, or that they were guilty but Congress commands their immunity--must remain secret.

And the constitutionality of the immunity granted by this bill is very questionable. As Judge Walker put it in the AT&T case:

AT&T's alleged actions here violate the constitutional

rights clearly established in [the] Keith decision. Moreover,

because `the very action in question has previously been held

unlawful,' AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable

entity in its position could have believed that the alleged

domestic dragnet was legal.

I would hope that the courts will find that, because the Constitutional rights of Americans have been violated, Congress' attempt to prevent court review is unconstitutional.

The bill also reiterates than FISA and specified other statutes are the exclusive legal authority for electronic surveillance. The Act has always said that. This bill adds some new mechanisms to ensure that any future legislation may not be read to override this exclusivity by implication, but only by explicitly saying that that is its purpose.

No one and no court should draw the false conclusion that we are thereby implying that the exclusivity provision was, or could have been, overridden either by the President's claim of inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution, or by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force of 2001. This bill does not say or imply that. If there is any doubt of this point, the blanket immunity provisions of this bill reflect Congress' understanding that this domestic spying was not legal. If it were, there would not be any necessity for these provisions.

This bill abandons the Constitution's protections and insulates lawless behavior from legal scrutiny.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise in support of this bill to reauthorize Amtrak, create a State grant program for intercity passenger rail, and invest in high-speed rail corridors. I want to thank the chairman, Jim Oberstar, and Corrine Brown and Ranking Members Mica and Shuster for moving this bill, which is long overdue.

For years, Amtrak has been underfunded and threatened with bankruptcy. For the last several years, Amtrak has received just enough money to maintain its system while many critical capital improvements have had to be postponed. As of 2005, Amtrak had a backlog of $4.2 billion in capital investments, which rises to $6 billion if you include the necessary bridge and tunnel improvements. Even with adequate funding, it will probably take 10 years to complete the work to bring the system into a state of good repair.

We cannot afford to play catchup with our rail transportation system, certainly not as gas prices continue to skyrocket. We have to look for ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to combat global warming. We should be shifting people from cars and airplanes onto rail.

This bill is also of particular benefit to the Northeast and to New York. In addition to the investments in the Northeast Corridor, the bill authorizes $2.5 billion for a new State capital grant program for intercity passenger rail projects. I am particularly thankful to the committee for structuring this program so that projects such as the Moynihan Station project in New York City are eligible to apply for these grants. Penn Station in my district is the largest station in the passenger rail network and is the hub of the Northeast Corridor. It is basically at capacity. If we are to increase rail traffic, we have to look beyond just the track space between cities to improving the stations at the end of the line. I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar for working with us to ensure that the language was written in such a way that projects like Moynihan Station are eligible.

Investing in high-speed rail is an urgent issue. We must accelerate investment in our rail infrastructure. This bill finally starts to authorize rail investments at an adequate level. It makes eminent sense as part of a rational energy and transportation policy. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

I thank again the chairman and the ranking member.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Dr. Barbara Warren who is celebrating 20 years of service, dedication and hard work at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Center in New York City.

Dr. Warren joined the staff of the center in 1988 as a psychologist and only healthcare professional within the staff of six. Today, the Center has a staff of nearly 80 with a third of those in service to health programs created under her leadership. Dr. Warren is one of the greatest resources to be found at the Center, a font of information and a tireless worker for the LGBT Community and all New Yorkers.

Dr. Warren has created numerous health programs, many the first of their kind, which now serve as examples both nationally and internationally. This array of programs include programs concerning HIV/AIDS, Crystal Meth, Bereavement, Alcohol, Substance and Tobacco Abuse, the Lesbian Cancer Initiative, the Gender Identity Project and the new Center CARE Recovery. Center CARE Recovery is the first licensed, outpatient LGBT-specific alcohol and substance abuse recovery program in New York State. Additionally, Dr. Warren created the Center Youth Program, Youth Enrichment Services (YES), 18 years ago, the first LGBT Youth program in the country, which has grown today to serve countless youth from all over the New York Metro area.

Barbara has been active for many years in helping to secure critically important funding for LGBT social service programs through the New York State Network of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health and Human Services Providers, the National Association of LGBT Community Centers and the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association, and is also a Faculty Member at the New York State Academy of Addiction Studies and at the graduate programs of Fordham University, Hunter College, Columbia University and Yeshiva University.

Dr. Warren was the principal writer of the official state-sponsored (NYS Office of Alcohol and Substance Abuse Service's Training for Counselors) training curriculum, which addresses sensitivity to LGBT- specific needs.

Today I rise to recognize and congratulate Dr. Barbara Warren for 20 years of outstanding and dedicated service to the people of New York and for her groundbreaking work in the field of LGBT Social Services which has set the standard for such programs both nationally and internationally.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of New York Artists Equity Association (NYAEA), now celebrating its 60th anniversary.

NYAEA's advocacy for legislation on behalf of visual artists is matched only by its dedication to the development of the visual arts in our communities, placing the New York artistic world in the context of the larger society, as a necessary component that enriches all of our lives.

Significantly, the Association promotes emerging American and international artists in its Broome Street Gallery. In 2006, the organization established the Jacob and Gwendolyn Lawrence Awards Fund, which finances solo exhibitions for emerging and under-recognized artists. I had the pleasure of meeting Jacob Lawrence, a renowned artist and past president of NYAEA at their 50th anniversary celebration, when Al Hirschfeld honored me by putting both of us in one of his drawings.

Madam Speaker, I particularly commend NYAEA, under the leadership of its Executive Director, Regina Stewart, for supporting visual artists at a time when they receive no help from the government. The Association provides referrals, legal services, and health care to visual artists in need, helping to ensure economic stability for those artists who might otherwise be forced to abandon their talents due to economic difficulties. New York Artists Equity Association works to preserve endangered visual art work, helping to assure the survival of our rich artistic past.

I am proud that NYAEA is in my Congressional District, and that its work reaches far beyond my District to help visual artists in the larger community. I wish to thank the Association for all it has done to advocate for the visual arts, and I also want to thank one of the Association's Past Vice Presidents, Doris Wyman, who serves on my Arts Advisory Committee, for her tireless advocacy. Because of my on-going work with this fine organization and their leadership, I know of their constant efforts and I commend them.

For 60 years, NYAEA has been a passionate advocate for visual artists. I salute New York Artists Equity Association for helping to assure a stable artistic community--one that is, and always must be, recognized as vital to our heritage and culture.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the New York County Lawyers' Association (NYCLA) which is celebrating 100 years of hard work and dedication in providing services to the legal profession and the public of New York City.

The New York County Lawyers' Association was founded one hundred years ago for the purpose of combating systemic exclusion of lawyers from bar membership on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity and sex.

In the past century, the Association has grown to 10,000 members, earning national prestige for its commitment to promoting the public interest. The NYCLA has continuously pursued the administration of justice through reforms in the law, by elevating standards of integrity and professionalism in the legal field, and by providing free legal services for those in need.

Over its long history, the NYCLA has sponsored countless initiatives that have contributed to the improvement of New York's justice system. The Association has played a major role in the reduction of court congestion, the rehabilitation of delinquent children, the implementation of anti-discriminatory provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, and the attainment of higher compensation for attorneys representing the indigent.

NYCLA has also issued many highly influential reports and resolutions to call attention to shortages of our legal system. These include calling for measures to reduce false confessions in criminal trials, ensuring right to counsel for residential tenants in Housing Court who cannot afford representation, and securing just compensation for judges.

The Association further offers a variety of meaningful Pro Bono Projects that provide

counseling and representation to the low-income, indigent and other persons in need. Included among these are projects that provide assistance to lay guardians with low assets, basic estate-planning documents to low-income persons, and counseling in the areas of family, employment, consumer bankruptcy and landlord/tenant law.

Consistently, the Association has worked to meet the changing needs of legal practice in the 21st century. The Association's highly acclaimed Continuing Legal Education Institute offers attorneys a variety of educational programs. NYCLA also facilitates public awareness and education on a wide array of issues through its forums and lecture series.

Today I rise to recognize and congratulate The New York County Lawyers' Association for 100 years of outstanding and dedicated service to the people of New York and for its groundbreaking work in furthering the administration of justice.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the lifelong work of a true fighter for civil liberties and civil rights, Marvin Johnson. Sadly, Marv passed away on March 21, after a long battle with complications from diabetes. It is a personal loss to those who knew him as a friend and colleague, and a loss to the many Americans who will never know how tirelessly he fought for their rights, sometimes against great odds, and often for the truly unpopular cause.

At the time of his passing, Marv was the first amendment counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington Legislative Office, a position he held for 8 years. During that time, he led many of the fights to protect the first amendment and our fundamental freedoms. He fought to ensure that all Americans enjoyed their freedom of expression, not only in print or in the public square, but also in ways that the framers never could have imagined--on television or on the internet.

Marv also wrote two reports detailing the dangers of domestic spying by Federal law enforcement, including an examination of the tactics used by our Government against Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As we now struggle to regain these precious constitutional rights, Marv's work has become even more important. As Marv wrote, ``American citizens must once again be confident they may exercise their constitutionally protected right to protest government policy without becoming targets of government scrutiny.''

Marv was also an outstanding resource. His vast knowledge and sound judgment were always ready to aid us in our work. As the Chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, I always valued Marv's views, even on those occasions where we disagreed.

Prior to his time in Washington, Marv was the Executive Director of the ACLU of Wyoming and before that, he was its board chair.

During his tenure as executive director a notorious hate crime was committed against a young gay man, Matthew Sheppard. That vicious murder is now infamous. Marv Johnson led the Wyoming LGBT and civil liberties communities during that difficult time. Marv also successfully resolved numerous first amendment cases in Wyoming, and he has a long list of legislative accomplishments.

Before his time at the ACLU of Wyoming, Marv worked as an attorney in private practice. He also served in the Air Force as a Judge Advocate General, including two years as the Chief of Military Justice for F.E. Warren Air Force Base.

Marv Johnson is survived by his wife Billie Ruth Edwards, who has also devoted her life to fighting for civil liberties. My deepest sympathies go out to her.

Madam Speaker, those of us who had the privilege of knowing Marv Johnson and working with him will remember his dedication to justice and human rights, his legal and political acumen, and his capacity for hard work. We will also remember his personal decency and good humor which seemed always there just when we needed it most. America is a better Nation because people like Marv are willing to fight for what is right even when that is profoundly unpopular. He enriched the lives of those who knew him. We will all miss his sharp wit and deep-rooted passion for liberty and freedom. I can think of no better way to remember and honor him than to continue his work with the same fearless passion he brought to everything he did.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bipartisan House Leadership Resolution, H. Con. Res. 322, of which I am a cosponsor, to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel.

In 1947, the year I was born, the area now known as Israel was about to go through a birth of its own. In 1948, with the founding of the only Jewish state to ever exist in history, Jews found that their new homeland was filled with sand and little water, but it was also filled with great hope and resolve. Following the murder of 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, this small country would soon become a homeland for another 6 million Jews, free to practice Judaism, but still targeted for their faith.

While Israel was formed, Jews all over the Middle East were facing a crisis of their own; Jewish refugees in Arab lands were expelled systematically, under an official regime policy which included anti- Jewish decrees, pogroms, murders and hangings, anti-Semitic incitement and ethnic cleansing. The Arab League's 1947 decree provided a formula for state-sanctioned discriminatory measures, replicated in many Arab countries, in a deliberate campaign to expel the Jewish refugees from their home countries. Unlike the Palestinians, the Jewish refugees were absorbed into their new host countries, mostly by Israel. About 600,000 stayed in Israel and the remaining 300,000 fled to other countries, such as France, Canada, Italy, and the United States. In Israel today, the Jewish refugees from Arab countries and their children comprise the majority of the Jewish population.

This House recently adopted my resolution, H. Res. 185, urging that the rights of Jewish refugees be recognized in any future comprehensive Middle East settlement. We are continually working to ensure that any Middle East peace agreement is just, fully just to all parties.

This is a continual process. From its first day, Israel has fought for its right to exist when it was attacked by its Arab neighbors. Since then, continuous wars have been waged, all aiming to destroy the Jewish state

and its people. At times, mothers and fathers have had to buy gas masks for their children; young children have had to celebrate their birthdays in bomb shelters. Despite this, families have shared laughter on the beaches of the Mediterranean; young couples have danced on the rooftops of Jerusalem. That all of these times have been simultaneous is a testament to the strength and determination for not only the State of Israel, but for humanity.

Following their independence, Israel's people, driven to immigrate for fear of persecution and for their ideological dreams, struggled with basic life, rationing food and living in makeshift shelters. The early immigrants began building the land, irrigating, planting, and educating their children. Working in the sun, Israel's wrinkles began to show the stress, but the outcome can be seen today; flowers and olive trees on the hillsides and universities at full capacity. In cooperation with the United States and other countries, innovations by Israelis in science, energy, agriculture, technology, and medicine have been felt around the world.

Today, the country is flowing with milk and honey, as a nation of immigrants and a home for the persecuted. But it is also facing much hardship. Like the United States, Israel was founded by immigrants escaping persecution and wanting to live in peace. But while Israel remains a sanctuary for Judaism, it remains a dangerous place to be a Jew.

In its 60th year, Israel faces some of its greatest challenges and needs its allies and friends more than ever. The Middle East is still a very dangerous place, and scapegoating Israel is still a very convenient means of holding power for some very dangerous autocrats. Such tactics are deplorable, and we must do everything we can to stop them.

While some Arab states have been working with us to respond to Iran's vicious lies and rhetoric, we must also continue to demand that Israel, our democratic ally, be recognized by these very states. And we must call for the immediate and unconditional release of Israeli soldiers kidnapped and held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah, which is called for by H. Res. 107, a bill I cosponsored.

Indeed, Israel is now at a critical crossroads. We hope for the best, but we remain mindful that peace cannot be achieved unless sincere and substantive acts are forthcoming from the Palestinians. Terror must come to an end, as must incitement. At middle age, and I speak of personal experience, as I am also marking my 60th year, one must take stock of their past and look forward to the future. The Israeli State and its people continue to work to preserve its foundation as a Jewish state with Jewish values, while they live in a region where the very idea of the existence of a Jewish state continues to be challenged. As Israel looks toward the future, integrating its immigrants, expanding its economy, preserving its heritage, and providing foreign assistance and refuge to Jews throughout the world, the United States will stand alongside her in her quest for peace and prosperity.

We hope to learn from each other; Israel continues to fight terror alongside the United States and stands as an example of how to balance civil liberties and security, religious freedom and the expression of religious values in its economic and political structure. Like the United States, the Jewish democratic State has a robust freedom of press that serves to teach the public and government how to better itself, and an independent judiciary which seeks to preserve the liberties for which it has fought.

The relationship the United States has with Israel is special; we have more in common than we do apart, and we continue to work in cooperation to achieve the broader goals of a peaceful future for our children and grandchildren. As we grow together as democratic nations facing challenging times, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution acknowledging the special bonds of friendship the United States shares with our only democratic ally in the Middle East, Israel. I thank our leadership for sponsoring this resolution and I strongly urge its passage.