Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Mark Twain famously said that one of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie is that a cat has only nine lives. This is certainly the case with respect to one of the most persistent slanders against the State of Israel: the contention that on June 8, 1967, the Israel Defense Forces intentionally attacked a U.S. Naval Intelligence vessel, the USS Liberty.

Fortunately that lie has been put to rest once and for all by the careful and exhaustive research of the Honorable A. Jay Cristol, a distinguished judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. His careful research of the Liberty incident clearly demonstrates that this tragedy was the result of mistaken identity at the height of the Six Day War, when Israel's very survival was at stake.

This conclusion is in line with the conclusions of 10 official U.S. investigations--including five congressional investigations--that there was never any evidence that the attack was made with knowledge that the target was a U.S. ship. There is substantial evidence the attack was a tragic mistake caused by errors on the part of both the U.S. and Israel.

On June 8,1967, at the height of the Six Day War, a U.S. Naval intelligence vessel, the USS Liberty, strayed into the waters 14 miles off the Sinai Peninsula, near El Arish. The Israel Defense Forces, having incorrectly identified it as an Egyptian vessel engaged in an attack of Israeli forces, attacked the Liberty, killing and wounding some of the crew.

As a U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry found, ``Available evidence combines to indicate that the attack on LIBERTY on 8 June was in fact a case of mistaken identity.''

No one with an open mind can read the evidence amassed by Judge Cristol and reach any other conclusion. Nonetheless, the conspiracy theories persist.

Conspiracy theories tend to have a life of their own. They can never be disproved. If there is no evidence supporting the conspiracy, then it is proof of a coverup. If there is evidence proving there was no conspiracy,

that is also proof of a coverup. Either way, evidence disproving a conspiracy theory only proves to believers that the conspiracy really exists.

No one denies that this incident was a terrible tragedy, but some have sought to exploit a case of mistaken identity by insisting that the Israeli military knew that the Liberty was a U.S. naval vessel, and attacked it on purpose. Despite the complete absence of any credible evidence to support this outrageous claim, it continues to be repeated as if it were true.

Judge Cristol has done a tremendous service with his work. It is my hope that his book, ``The Liberty Incident: The 1967 Attack on the U.S. Navy Spy Ship,'' which was the result of more than 14 years of research, will finally lay to rest this slander against one of our Nation's most reliable allies.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have demonstrated that they either do not have a plan to fix the problem of the uninsured, or they simply do not care. Instead, they drag out the same tired giveaways to insurance companies year after year while trampling on the rights of consumers and patients.

This bill is a perfect example. It does nothing to address the real causes of rising malpractice rates, but instead protects insurance companies from their own poor business practices. It protects the pharmaceutical companies. It protects the manufacturers of medical devices. It protects everyone except the victims of medical malpractice.

We are told the bill is necessary to drive down insurance rates because juries are awarding too much money to plaintiffs. But the fact is lawsuits account for less than 2 percent of health care costs, as they always have, according to CBO. The average jury award has hardly increased at all in the last decade. In the last year, claims payments have decreased, gone down, by 9 percent, according to HHS, yet insurance premiums continue to rise.

So where is the crisis? Not in huge runaway juries and not in exorbitant awards. Yet we have here a spectacular assault on the rights of consumers and patients. A cap on noneconomic damages of $250,000 might have been reasonable in 1975 when it was first imposed in California, but today, and with increasing inflation, it is worth less and less.

When we considered this bill in committee last year, I offered amendments to raise the cap to $1.5 million, or at least to index it to inflation so it does not get inflated down to worthlessness. Party line vote: Cannot do that.

But the biggest weakness of this bill is that it will not work. Anyone who thinks insurance rates will go down as a result of this bill is being sold a bill of goods. This bill merely hopes the insurance executives will, out of the goodness of their hearts, reduce the rates they charge doctors. But there is no mechanism to guarantee this. Instead, the bill will simply lead to higher bottom lines for the insurance companies and protect the careless insurance companies and the careless manufacturers.

Every attempt by Democrats to mandate that savings be passed along to doctors in the form of lower rates was voted down by the Republicans. Mr. Speaker, we should not be misled by this bill's supporters. Do not believe for a second that insurance rates will go down as a result of this bill. This bill should be seen for what it is: a gift from the Republican majority to the big insurance companies at the cost of patients' rights, and deluding the doctors and the health care practitioners who are being led down the garden path.

If it were meant to help them, why do the Republicans refuse to put into this bill a provision that mandates that the savings that this bill will supposedly accomplish, at least some of those savings, are passed along to doctors in the form of lower malpractice rates? It will not happen.

The true thing we should do is to crack down on the 1 or 2 percent of doctors who cause 90 percent of the insurance claims who should not be practicing medicine, and better regulate the insurance companies. That is what we should do to solve this problem. Instead, we have this feel- good bill that will injure already injured patients and will do nothing for the doctors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Moses and Aaron Foundation Special Fund for Children, a truly distinguished organization that assists children with disabilities and their families.

Created in the memory of Rabbi Dr. Maurice I. Hecht and Aaron Kaploun, the foundation has kept alive Dr. Hecht and Mr. Kaploun's commitment to community service through counseling, guidance, wheelchair assistance, and financial assistance to those families with special children.

I believe that the foundation's work is a shinning beacon of light for children in need. Examples of such work include providing educational scholarships, clothing and presents.

In addition, the Moses and Aaron Foundation under the direction of its President Rabbi Yaacov Kaploun, and Executive Vice President Yehuda Kaploun, in cooperation with Bally Fitness Centers, has established 27 therapy and physical fitness centers and has arranged for sound and musical equipment in other institutions.

As the foundation hosts its 9th annual Chazak Summer Concert for Special Children on August 20, 2005, we are again reminded of all that the Moses and Aaron Foundation has contributed to the greater American community. For the past 8 years, the Motzei Shabbat Nachamu Concert, at Sullivan Community College Field House in Loch Sheldrake, New York, has benefited special children and their families by offering them an enjoyable night of music, dancing and plain good fun.

The concert will honor and pay tribute to the special and outstanding children who will be the guests of honor and will perform with the entertainers on stage. More than 40 organizations and schools serving the physically and mentally disabled children will be represented.

The Chazak Concert in connection with the many other programs operated by the Moses and Aaron Foundation, demonstrate a caring and compassionate concern for the quality and dignity of life of those in need, and therefore merits appreciation.

I would also like to applaud the Honorary Chairman and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, President Rabbi Yaacov Kaploun and Executive Vice President Yehuda Kaploun for their hard work and commitment to children of special needs and their families.

I pause to commemorate the recent passing of Mrs. Tzippora Kaploun of Jerusalem, Israel, wife of the late Aaron Kaploun. She instilled in her children, grandchildren and great grandchildren the importance of community service and a compassion for those individuals who require the assistance and support of those who are blessed with ability to provide and assist. She exemplified the principles upon which the Foundation is based.

I recognize Mr. Jerry Rothman, recipient of the Dr. Steven Stowe Acts of Kindness Award and remember fondly his late wife Anita Rothman, whose acts of charity impacted the lives of many in the course of their 65 years of marriage. We remember the social service and kindness of the late Issac Weinberger who recently passed, and his wife Anne Weinberger.

As the Moses and Aaron Foundation Special Fund for Children commemorates this special event, I urge my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to an organization that provides such an essential service to the community and truly exemplifies the generosity of Americans.

Mr. Chairman, war has been declared on this country by the Islamic terrorists, and we must protect the citizens of this country. The PATRIOT Act was an attempt in some respects to do this.

But before commenting on the specifics of the PATRIOT Act, I would be derelict if I did not mention that the majority party in this House and the Bush administration have really been derelict by not dealing more directly with the threats that we face. The biggest threats we face are sabotage, bombings in our mass transit systems, sabotage of our chemical farms, our nuclear plants that could kill thousands of people, yet we do not see funds to deal with this.

It is easy to be demagogic. The Bush administration does not want to throw money at the problem; they want to throw rhetoric at the problem. So we have the PATRIOT Act. I wish we had real measures to protect our mass transit systems, to protect our vulnerable infrastructure, to protect us against what happened in London again this morning.

The PATRIOT Act was an attempt to do several things, some of which were very necessary. Breaking down the wall between intelligence and police information was very necessary and was in the PATRIOT Act and is not before us today because most of the PATRIOT Act is not before us today. Most of the PATRIOT Act is permanentized. It is permanent law. But when we are expanding police powers and when we are expanding surveillance powers, the power of government to pry into the private affairs, the books, the records, the medical histories of individual citizens, sometimes it may be necessary

for security to do so. But it endangers liberty, and that has to be balanced. We should always be nervous about expanding police and surveillance powers, and that is one of the greatest weaknesses of this bill.

We were only able to pass the PATRIOT Act 4 years ago because most, not all but most of the sections of the PATRIOT Act that expanded the powers of the police to pry into the privacy of ordinary Americans, to go into their home, into their papers, into their Internet records, their telephone records, their bank records, were sunsetted.

So what? What is the point of sunsetting? It means that every 4 years at least Congress has to look at that again, has to revisit it, has to have oversight and determine whether those powers are being abused. Mr. Sensenbrenner says they are not being abused. He knows. The Justice Department said so. They said, We are not abusing it. Glad to hear it. But every 4 years we should have to look into it and ask are these powers being abused? Should it be fine tuned? Should they be narrowed? Have we made the right balance between security and liberty?

This bill eliminates those sunsets, except for two, which it makes 10-year sunsets.

We have had 4 years since the PATRIOT Act was enacted. We did not do any oversight in this House until 6 months ago. Why? Because of the sunset. If it had not been for the sunsetting, we would not have had the oversight. We must have that oversight and we should have had all of these things sunsetted, continued another 4 years, another 4 years.

Secondly, Members have heard about section 215. The powers granted in section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which is hardly modified by this bill, to look into anybody's library and medical records in secret and not tell anybody that they have done so, not tell the person whose records are pried into is a very disturbing invasion of liberty, and amendments to limit it were not made in order. Section 505 of the bill, which enables any FBI agent, any FBI field office director, to issue a national security letter to let them go and see their Internet records, their phone records, and so forth without even going to a judge and telling them it is relevant to a national security investigation is wrong, and it was declared unconstitutional by a federal court. The amendments to make this constitutional, to say that they have to at least allow for judicial review and to sunset the gag order were not made in order.

This should be defeated for those reasons because it is not a proper balance between security and liberty.

Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, though I am in support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

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

Mr. Chairman, section 505 is one of the most, perhaps the most egregious provision of the PATRIOT Act, and it provides essentially, as was said before, that any Director of an FBI field office can issue a national security letter directing the production of financial, telephone, Internet and other records, period, without a court order, without any judicial approval, and there is no provision for going to courts to oppose that. The person whose privacy it is sought to invade never knows about it because it is directed to a third party; namely, the Internet service provider, the telephone company, or whoever. Furthermore, they are prevented by the gag order provision of section 505 from ever telling the person whose privacy is affected or anyone else about this.

The Federal Court in New York has ruled it unconstitutional for two reasons. One, you cannot issue this kind of what amounts to an intrusive search warrant without any judicial approval or provision for getting judicial approval. That is a violation of the fourth amendment. And, two, the gag order, the nondisclosure provision, was ruled as a prior restraint on speech, the first amendment.

This amendment, which I am pleased to cosponsor, is an attempt to solve these problems. It goes a considerable distance towards solving these problems. I do not think it solves all the problems. It does not make section 505 acceptable or even, in my opinion, constitutional, but it goes a good distance towards doing that.

It solves the first problem by saying that you can get a national security letter without going to court, but the recipient can go to court to quash it. That is a minimum standard that ought to be adhered to. This amendment does that, and I am very pleased it does that. It allows the recipient of a national security letter to ask that the gag order be set aside, and it sets limits on the gag order and says it has to be renewed after a certain time period and you have to apply to a court to extend it.

It fails, in my opinion, in that second provision to reach constitutional status by saying that the showing the government has to make to get an extension of the gag order, the affidavit by the government officer asking for the extension, shall be treated as conclusive unless the court finds that certification was made in bad faith. So that is not really up to the judgment of the judge, and I do not think that would satisfy the court on the first amendment. But it goes a long way, as I said, toward making this less egregious a violation of civil liberties and towards making it more constitutional. I do not think it goes far enough but it is a step forward.

It also does not deal with the fact that section 505 should be sunsetted. Because section 505, like some of the other sections we have talked about, is a great expansion of surveillance and police powers, and it may be a necessary one, although I do not agree with that, but even if it is necessary we should be nervous about the expansion of surveillance and police powers and we should revisit that and force Congress to revisit it through using a sunset every so often.

So this amendment goes a considerable distance in the right direction. It does not go far enough, in my opinion, to solve the problems with section 505, but it does go several steps in the right direction, and I commend the sponsor for introducing it, the main sponsor for drafting it, and I support the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member on the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the remarks of the majority leader a few minutes ago. Democracy depends on free speech and dissent. Free speech is stifled when dissent is labeled treason or is derided in time of war as not supporting our troops.

We all support our troops. One can point out the mistakes or the dishonesty of the administration while not stinting in supporting our troops. Pointing out that the administration misled the country about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is not ``not supporting our troops.''

Pointing out that Karl Rove appears to have participated in a conspiracy to punish Ambassador Wilson for telling the truth about this by revealing the Ambassador's wife's CIA role is not ``not supporting our troops.''

Pointing out the administration's justification for keeping our troops in harm's way in Iraq flip-flops by the season is not ``not supporting our troops.''

Demanding proper investigation of evidence that the administration has disgraced this country by evading our laws against torturing prisoners is not ``not supporting our troops.''

A free society requires that all these accusations see the light of day. Let the administration rebut them if they can. But do not use the mantra of supporting our troops to stifle essential free speech.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and accomplishments of Paul Winchell, who passed away on Friday, June 24th.

Paul was born in Manhattan's Lower East Side on December 21, 1922. He studied ventriloquism from an early age, overcoming speech impediments and a difficult family life. He would go on to become one of the great pioneers of early television, bringing a smile to every household with his ventriloquism act on the Paul Winchell-Jerry Maloney show in the 1950's.

To younger generations, Paul was best known as the voice of Tigger, the loveable tiger from Walt Disney's adaptation of ``Winnie the Pooh.'' He also played numerous roles on children's programs such as the Jetsons, the Smurfs, the Brady Bunch, and the Beverly Hillbillies. But Paul was much more than an entertainer--he was also an innovative thinker and inventor with thirty patents.

At the age of 35, Paul decided to return to school at Columbia University, where he studied premed and went on to work on projects for the American Red Cross and the Leukemia Society. In 1963 he joined forces with Doctor Henry Heimlich, and together they developed and patented the first early artificial heart. Rather than sit on his accomplishment, however, he donated the heart to the University of Utah, where it served as the prototype for Dr. Robert Jarvik's first successful heart implant in 1982.

Paul Winchell lived a life of unparalleled diversity. Whether making children smile or improving lives through innovation, he dedicated his talents to the betterment of his surroundings, and I request that we honor him for a life well lived.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I am pleased that my colleagues have focused on the importance of the Supreme Court's Kelo decision. The power of eminent domain is an extraordinary power that must be used rarely and with great care. Even where the constitution might permit the exercise of this extraordinary power, government must take great care to respect the rights of families, of small businesses and of communities. This is not a power that should be used for the benefit of private parties who might be well connected, as Justice O'Connor said. It is a power that can be abused, and that has been abused.

I want to point out that the Supreme Court, in this decision, is essentially saying that power that communities have exercised, they can continue to exercise, where some thought that we ought to pull it back. For example, when President Bush was one of the owners of the Texas Rangers baseball team, they were able to get the town of Arlington, Texas, to condemn private property to give them land to build a baseball stadium. Ask the Mathes family about the abuse of power. The city condemned 13 acres of their land for George Bush's baseball team, and the Mathes family had to go to court to compensate them for the actual value of the land.

Now, I think we would agree that was not right, and the Supreme Court now says that that is okay. We cannot allow private individuals to be enriched at the expense of their neighbors by hijacking and abusing the power of government.

The Kelo decision raises a great many questions, and I want to commend my colleagues, the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), for introducing legislation and allowing the Committee on the Judiciary to consider the full impact of the court's decision and draw the proper line between the public interest and private enrichments. We need to protect families like the Mathes family, victimized by the Texas Rangers and the town government in Texas, and we need to protect our communities from the abuse of government power to benefit private interest.

Now, I am going to reluctantly vote against the resolution because, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) said, it says things about the decision that probably are not accurate. I do not think the decision said that you can use the power of eminent domain for the sole benefit of another private person. It might be the incidental benefit of a private person if you could concoct a theory of public benefit. I do not think it completely negates the public use requirements of the takings clause.

Having said that, the basic purpose of the resolution is a good one, and the basic purpose of the legislation that the chairman has introduced is a good purpose. But I hope we will hold a series of hearings on the Committee on the Judiciary. We should hold one hearing to determine from experts exactly what the Supreme Court said; how far it went and how far it did not go. When the dissent says it went this far, it does not mean that is what the majority meant. Dissents often overemphasize the implications of the majority decision.

So I think we should have one hearing on what the Supreme Court actually said and what we are faced with, and I think we should have another hearing on where we think we should draw the line. Communities need to be able to use eminent domain for legitimate economic development, but they should not be able to use it for private enrichment. How do you draw that line?

These are serious questions that we should consider adequately. I think we should hold a few hearings and craft careful legislation to limit the effect of the Supreme Court's decision, and I would hope that we could craft legislation carefully that we could all support in this House.

So, again, I commend Chairman Sensenbrenner, and I am glad to be able to have the opportunity to do that after recent history. I commend Ranking Member Conyers. But I will reluctantly vote against this resolution because, although I approve of its main thrust, I believe it says things about the court decision that are not quite accurate, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to fashion legislation that we can all support and that gets us what the Greeks called the proper mien to protect the rights of

communities for proper economic development, but protect the rights of individuals. But I do, once again, thank the gentleman for bringing this subject to our attention.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I must say the gentleman's logic is impeccable, and I think the gentleman has convinced me to vote for the resolution despite what I said before.

My question is this: According to principles of this resolution and of the draft legislation introduced by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), if that were to pass, do you think that would prevent or would have prevented the seizure of land for the Texas Rangers baseball stadium and it would prevent the seizure of land for the Washington National baseball stadium?

Mr. Chairman, this bill is a backdoor attempt to shut down Amtrak, to guarantee an Amtrak bankruptcy. We simply cannot allow it to happen.

Amtrak is one of our most efficient modes of transportation. It provides a vital alternative to our clogged highways. We need to finally start investing adequate resources in Amtrak to allow the railroad to provide stable, reliable service.

We spend approximately $50 billion a year on highways and aviation, but only about $1 billion on Amtrak. We hear that Amtrak funding should be cut because the railroad is not profitable or is inefficient or mismanaged. Amtrak has had its problems, but they are largely a result of being systematically underfunded for 30 years. Deliberately forcing Amtrak into bankruptcy, destroying it, should be unthinkable.

We do not require highways or the air transport system to be self- sufficient or profitable. No transportation system is self-sufficient, and we should

not require that of Amtrak either. It is an illusory goal. We should fund our transportation systems because they provide an important public service. They are critical to the economy and a vital part of national security.

On September 11, 4 years ago, Amtrak was the only mode of transportation into and out of New York City. Redundancy in transportation is key for national security. This amendment will restore Amtrak funding to close to last year's level and will avert a shutdown of the railroad. It ought to be adopted. I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the LaTourette-Oberstar amendment to restore funding for Amtrak.

The FY06 TTHUD Approps bill funds Amtrak at a paltry $550 million--a cut of $650 million from last year's level, which was barely enough to keep Amtrak running. This is simply a backdoor attempt to shut down the railroad--to guarantee an Amtrak bankruptcy. We simply cannot allow this to happen.

Amtrak is of particular concern to me given that my district contains Penn Station in New York City, the largest Amtrak Station in the country. In New York alone, Amtrak carries over 10 million passengers a year, employs over 2,000 New York residents, and contributes over $96 million in wages a year.

Amtrak is one of the most energy efficient modes of transportation. It provides a vital alternative to our clogged highways. We need to finally start investing adequate resources in Amtrak to allow the railroad to provide stable, reliable service. We spend approximately $50 billion a year on highways and aviation, but only about $1 billion on Amtrak. We hear that Amtrak funding should be cut because the railroad is not profitable or is inefficient or mismanaged. Amtrak has had its problems but they are largely a result of being underfunded for about thirty years. Deliberately forcing Amtrak into bankruptcy-- destroying it--should be unthinkable.

We don't require highways or the air transportation system to be self-sufficient or profitable, and we shouldn't require that of Amtrak either. We should fund our transportation systems because they provide an important public service, they are critical to our economy, and a vital part of our national security. On September 11, 2001 Amtrak was the only mode of transportation into, or out of, New York City. Redundancy is key for national security, and we must preserve all modes of transportation, including rail.

The LaTourette-Oberstar Amendment will restore Amtrak funding to close to last year's level and will avert a shutdown of the railroad. It is essential that this amendment pass, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase funding for section 8 housing vouchers for low-income people by $100 million to enable an additional 15,000 low-income families to afford safe decent housing.

To offset this increase, the amendment cuts the working capital fund, a poorly managed computer upgrade program that has been the subject of lawsuits and which the committee criticizes in its report on Page 108. Even with the reduction, the bill would still provide up to $110 million in working capital funds for IT projects.

Please note, the bill provides up to $65 million in working capital funds in 11 accounts scattered around the bill other than the working capital fund itself.

We have a choice, Mr. Chairman. Do we want to help thousands of families obtain safe affordable housing, or do we think it is more important to have a somewhat faster computer upgrade in HUD? If we support American families, we should support this amendment. The need for housing assistance is staggering. All over the country, local housing authorities have long section 8 waiting lists, years long, but are forced

to reduce the number of housing vouchers they give out, not because there is not a huge need, but because we are failing to meet the need here in Washington.

In fiscal year 2001, we increased the number of section 8 vouchers by 79,000. For fiscal year 2002, the number of new vouchers dropped to 18,000. In fiscal years 2003, 2004 and 2005 not one new voucher at all was provided for. Rather, the debate concerned how much funding was necessary simply to maintain the same number of vouchers. And so it is again now as we debate the fiscal year 2006 budget.

Despite the committee's assurance that the bill fully funds section 8 voucher renewals, the committee has been flatly wrong in making this assertion in each of the last 3 years; 2 years ago, for example, we passed an amendment to boost section 8 voucher funding by $150 million. The committee opposed the amendment on the Floor arguing that vouchers were fully funded.

Yet the conference report adopted a few months later added $110 million over and above the $150 million we added on the Floor, meaning that the committee would have underfunded section 8 vouchers by over $1 billion while saying the account was fully funded. That was 2 years ago.

Last year, the conference report provided $89 million more for voucher renewals than did the House bill. Yet just 2 months after the approval of the conference report, the Department, HUD, acknowledged that even the conference report fell $568 million short of funding all voucher renewals.

Now the committee, once again, says it is fully funding section 8 voucher renewals. But the President, President Bush tells us that to renew all existing section 8 vouchers, we would need $314 million more than the committee thinks is necessary. So the committee understated by $1 billion, by $568 million, and now by $314 million in each of the last 3 years.

We all understand that the budget is extremely tight and that many programs are facing cuts. Our amendment therefore does not seek the $314 million above the committee amount that the President would recommend. It seeks merely to restore $100 million. This is less than the bare minimum of what is needed.

The amendment will not enable us to provide vouchers to any more families than receive them now, but it will allow us to continue to help 15,000 families who are now being helped. It enables us to avoid throwing 15,000 poor families out on the street. That is our choice. The section 8 housing voucher program provides safe affordable housing to approximately 2 million American families in urban and rural communities in every State across our country. These vouchers are often the only resource for low-income families confronted by our Nation's affordable housing crisis. Once again, the choice is, will we force an existing 15,000 families who are now living in safe decent housing out on the street because we do not have the money to renew their vouchers? Or will we slow down a computerization program for the bureaucrats at HUD? That is the choice. I hope we will elect to help the low-income families meet their critical housing needs by supporting this amendment. I hope everyone will vote yes on the Nadler-Velazquez-Frank amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will also at this time include in the Record a chart which documents the 11 different accounts in which funding for the working capital fund is squirreled away, so that people do not think that our offset takes too much money away from this program. And I will include in the Record a letter in support of this amendment signed by nine religious organizations representing Catholics, Jews, Lutherans, Presbyterians and Methodists.

Account Amount Working Capital............................................$165,000,000 S&E--transferrable...........................................15,000,000 Sect. 8 voucher acct..........................................5,900,000 Sect. 8 project acct..........................................1,000,000 Pub. Hsng. Capital...........................................10,000,000

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and let me say that I also appreciate the work of the distinguished chairman from Michigan in bringing some order from the recommendation of the administration on this bill, but I have to make a couple of comments.

First of all, as I said before, look at what we have done on Section 8. We have hundreds of thousands of people on waiting lists, hundreds of thousands, waiting 8, 9, 10 years for decent housing for Section 8 vouchers. As recently as 2001, we increased the number of Section 8 vouchers by 79,000. In 2002, we increased it by 18,000. Since then, in 2003, 2004, 2005, we did not increase it by one, not by one. Instead, we debated, are we funding the existing number of vouchers, and this is what we are debating again now. I wish we were debating increasing the number of vouchers.

The gentleman from Michigan says Section 8 is fully funded. Well, I do not think it is, but even if it were, we should be increasing the number, and if we are wrong, and we are increasing the number by a few, that is the right thing to do, but the fact is, look at the history here.

Two years ago, the committee said we were fully funding Section 8. We added to that an amendment of $150

million. The conference report added $910 million above that, and that is what was necessary to fully fund it, $1 billion above what the committee said was fully funded. Last year, the conference report added $89 million above what the House did, $89 million more than what the committee said was necessary to fully fund existing Section 8, and HUD later acknowledged during the year that that did not fully fund it. It was $568 million short, and a huge number of people lost their vouchers.

Now the committee once again says it is fully funded, but the President says we need $314 million more to fully fund it. This amendment would give $100 million of the $314 million the President says is necessary to fully fund it, and again, what do we mean by fully fund? Not kick people out on the street, not increase by one, not shorten the waiting list. So we ought to be doing that.

Finally, let me say that we are told that the offset would leave only $45 million in its computer account. The fact is the co-committee has been very ingenuous in squirrelling away money in different accounts. I have here, and I submitted for the Record earlier, the list of all the places in the bill where money is squirrelled away. There is a total of $230 million. If we take $120 million away, as we will, that will leave $110 million for this purpose, which is enough for the computer upgrade program that they are talking about. Again, are we in favor of people having decent housing, or are we in favor of a somewhat faster computer upgrade at the Department?

Do not believe bureaucrats when they tell us that all will be lost if they do not get all the money they need. We should know better than that.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, Republicans many of them support this amendment. We passed a similar amendment 2 years ago with Republican support; 170 Members have signed a letter in support of this amendment, including many Members from the other side of the aisle. They voted for the same amendment 2 years ago.

I urge everyone on both sides of the aisle to vote for this amendment, to indicate that the very least we can do is not reduce the number of people who have the assistance, who are having decent housing. If we value family values, if we value decency in providing people with the ability to have decent housing, we will support this amendment, and the damage will be mitigated. It is not as much as the President wants, $314 million, but at least it is a third of that. Unfortunately, we could not find more offsets.

So I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the chairman. I urge everyone to vote for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure before I start that we have the amended amendment that says $5 million, not $10 million.

The ACTING Chairman. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, although I am not going to take 5 minutes.

This amendment would increase the appropriation for the Housing Opportunity For Persons with AIDS program.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase the appropriation for the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS program, or HOPWA, by $5 million.

I thank Chairman Knollenberg and Ranking Member Olver for recommending a $3 million increase from last year's appropriation, significantly more than the administration request. But this follows a $13 million cut last year.

Adequately meeting the housing needs of all those living with HIV/ AIDS would take over $2 billion. More than 100 Members, from both sides of the aisle, joined me in asking the Appropriations committee for $385 million in HOPWA funding in FY06. This amendment, however, seeks only to restore the cuts from last year and return HOPWA to the FY04 level of $295 million.

The costs associated with the new AIDS treatments often force people to choose between essential medications and other necessities, such as housing. HOPWA answers this need. With 91 percent of HOPWA recipients having family incomes less than $1,000 per month, program recipients simply cannot afford the cuts HOPWA has taken.

HOPWA is an extremely fiscally sound program. It supplies a low-cost alternative to acute-care hospital beds, typically paid for by Medicaid. Acute-care facilities cost Medicaid, on average, more than $1,000 a day, while assistance under HOPWA costs as little as $55 to $110 a day.

Nationwide, thousands of people are now on waiting lists for HOPWA- funded housing. The housing crisis facing people living with HIV/AIDS imposes enormous costs on individuals with the disease and on their families and communities. Without adequate HOPWA funding, AIDS patients will continue to flood our emergency rooms and shelters, and our Medicaid rolls. Let's get back at least to the FY04 funding level.

I thank Messrs. Shays and Crowley for co-sponsoring this amendment, and demonstrating the bipartisan support HOPWA enjoys. I strongly urge the adoption of this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I was going to add that I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for their cooperation, and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for cosponsoring the amendment. I appreciate the gentleman's acceptance, and I will take ``yes'' for an answer, happily.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

(Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Offered By: Mr. Nadler

Amendment No. 10: Page 76, line 24, after the dollar

amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

Page 95, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Nadler

Amendment No. 11: Page 63, line 20, after the dollar

amount, insert the following: ``(increased by

$100,000,000)''.

Page 63, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.

Page 63, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.

Page 92, line 23, after the first dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $36,000,000)''.

Page 95, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $65,000,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to note that during the debate on the Nadler amendment to H.R. 3010, which would have restored funding to Arts in Education programs, a procedural error occurred.

The Record will reflect that at the end of the debate, as a result of the agreement by Chairman Regula to work to maintain funds for Arts in Education programs in conference, I stated that I would not seek a vote on my amendment. Immediately following the debate, however, in his haste to keep the proceedings moving, the Chair called a vote, contradicting my intention to withdraw my amendment. With nobody apparently listening, or realizing there was a vote in progress--no ``aye'' or ``nay'' vote was heard--the Chair declared the voice vote in the negative.

I would like the Record to reflect that it was my intention to withdraw my amendment, because of Chairman Regula's commitment to the Arts in Education program. I trust that commitment will not be affected by the procedural error.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois for his magnanimity and largeness of thought in this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to restore the funding for Arts in Education programs to $35.6 million. Unfortunately, the underlying Labor-HHS appropriations bill zeros out this program, effectively eliminating it.

This year, 106 of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle, include my friends, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), joined me in writing to the committee asking for $53 million in Arts in Education funding. Given the funding constraints in the bill, the amendment instead asked that we simply level fund the program, the number passed after conference last year.

This program provides funds to establish model programs at the Department of Education that brings arts education to schools across the country as well as funds to support the professional development of arts educators. The program also supports the ongoing national arts education initiatives of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and VSA arts which ensure that people with disabilities can learn through, participate in and enjoy the arts.

Time and again, parents, educators and community leaders tell us that arts education is critical for preparing our Nation's children to succeed in school, work and life. Years of research demonstrate that a real significant link exists between arts education and students' academic performance and social development.

Arts funding and education funding is not controversial and is nonpartisan. Some of the most vocal proponents of Arts in Education include Republican Governor Mike Huckabee and former Education Secretary Rod Paige. I know the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) also is supportive of Arts in Education programs.

I would like to thank the gentleman for working with the Senate each year to increase funding in conference, and thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his leadership on this issue. I understand that this is a tight bill in a tight funding year generally, but it is important that the House voice its support for this program.

So I ask the distinguished chairman and the ranking member to work with me and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) to assure that funds for these beneficial, well-liked programs are maintained, if not increased, in conference this year.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am not clear that I am going to ask for a vote on this amendment. If we get an appropriate assurance that we will work in conference from the chairman, we may not have to do that. I will ask the chairman to express himself on that subject.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the distinguished chairman from Ohio as to the fact that there will be efforts made in conference to try to retain this program. I think that is probably the best we can do, and I appreciate his statement. I will at this point not ask for a vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the World Trade Center was in my district. I have dealt with hundreds of first responders who responded. The majority of all the first responders have now come down with respiratory ailments, and yet the State has betrayed them and we are betraying them because the insurance company that handles workers' comp has contested the worker comp claims at a rate of 10 times the normal rate of contest. And now we are going to rescind the money?

We have a hero who testified at a hearing last week that he got awards for rescuing people, and then at the workers' comp hearing, they said he was not even there.

The fact is thousands of people have come down with illnesses. Thousands more probably will. It would be the height of hypocrisy to rescind these funds and not have these funds available for the medical treatment of these people whom we know are sick. And, unfortunately, we know more will get sick, and the funds to treat those already sick are not there. I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this morning's New York Times reveals that a new classified assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency says Iraq may prove to be an even more effective training ground for Islamic extremists than Afghanistan was in al Qaeda's early days because it is serving as a real-world laboratory for urban combat and that Iraq, since the American invasion of 2003, had assumed the role played by Afghanistan during the rise of al Qaeda as a magnet and a proving ground for Islamic extremists from Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries.

Mr. Speaker, we know that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We know there was no connection between Iraq and Osama bin Laden. We know the President deceived the American people on these subjects, got us into an unnecessary war, and has now created a danger zone in Iraq, a country that was no danger, no threat to the United States and now is a training ground for more al Qaeda extremists who will be more and more endangering to the United States in terrorism.

We have created a training ground. We have created a training ground for terrorists because of the President's deception of American people. Some war on terrorism.