Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), Democratic whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, more than anything else, today's debate is about the politics of a national election. Perhaps our sons and daughters have been sent to Iraq based on intelligence we now know was not correct, perhaps millions of Americans are out of work, and many more do not have access to a doctor. Perhaps our seniors cannot afford life- protecting medications, but none of that matters, at least we can today take the time out to beat up on an unpopular minority.

Mr. Speaker, that may be good politics, but it demonstrates a dangerous contempt for our system of government. This debate is not really about gay marriage, no matter how long they may talk about it. The courts will or will not declare the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. We do not know that yet. If they declare the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, for those that disagree with them, the remedy is the normal remedy, a constitutional amendment, which I gather we will be debating on this floor in a couple of weeks before we know what the courts do.

But this debate is about whether Congress can adopt unconstitutional legislation on any subject and protect that legislation from constitutional challenge by stripping the courts of their jurisdiction to consider any such challenge. We have never done that before in our history, and we should not do that now.

No less a conservative icon than Barry Goldwater opposed court stripping bills in previous decades on the subjects of school prayer, school busing and abortion, which were the big issues in those days. He warned his colleagues that, ``The frontal assault on the independence of the Federal courts is a dangerous blow to the foundations of a free society.''

Our former colleague, Bob Barr, the author of the Defense of Marriage Act which this bill purports to protect, had this to say in a letter to the Members of Congress about this bill. ``H.R. 3313 will needlessly set a dangerous precedent for future Congresses that might want to protect unconstitutional legislation from judicial review. During my time in Congress, I saw many bills introduced that would violate the takings clause, the second amendment, the 10th amendment, and many other constitutional protections. The fundamental protections afforded by the Constitution would be rendered meaningless if others follow the path set by H.R. 3313.'' That is from Bob Barr.

The distinguished majority leader of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), has already said that if this bill passes he will introduce court-stripping legislation on other subjects. In fact, the likelihood is that language saying the court shall have no jurisdiction to judge the constitutionality of this act will become boilerplate. Just as every rule that we consider in this House has boilerplate language saying that all points of order against this bill are waived, which means the rules of the House do not apply, it will become boilerplate on every bill of doubtful constitutionality. That would render the Bill of Rights meaningless.

The 1936 Stalinist constitution of the Soviet Union read wonderfully on paper. It had a long list of Bill of Rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. It was not worth the paper it was written on because there was no means of enforcing those rights. We depend on the courts to enforce our rights against majorities represented in Congress or State legislatures, momentary majorities perhaps.

Without the means of the courts enforcing the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights is a nullity. Our Constitution would become like the Soviet constitution, meaningless. We must have a Federal forum to protect liberty, otherwise that liberty will not exist.

The due process clause of the fifth amendment, passed after the Judiciary Court Act of 1789, says that no person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Due process of law means there has to be a judicial forum to assert the right and have the judges decide.

We are told the State courts will be the forum. The State courts will decide whether a law, a Federal law or a State law, violates the United States Constitution. That means we will have 50 different constitutions, 50 different laws. We say in the Pledge of Allegiance the United States is one Nation, indivisible; not if this bill passes. If this bill and other bills like it pass, we

will balkanize the United States. The Constitution will mean one thing in New Jersey, another thing in New York and a third thing in Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, it is our very system of government and the constitutional system of checks and balances which is under attack with this bill. If the Congress by statute can prevent the Federal courts from applying the Constitution on any subject matter, then the protections of an independent judiciary, the protections of the Bill of Rights, the protections of the United States Constitution, become no more than a puff of smoke. It will, of course, be unpopular minorities, whether religious minorities, political minorities, ethnic minorities, racial minorities, lesbians, gays, whoever is unpopular at the moment, who will lose their rights.

There have been many Supreme Court decisions I have found loathsome and wrong, such as Bush v. Gore, and some of the cases invalidating or limiting our civil rights law, but while that makes me question the wisdom of some of the justices, even occasionally the motives, it does not make we want to alter the fundamental structure of our government that has protected our liberties for the last two centuries.

The evisceration of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the natural result of this bill, threatens all of us. It is far, far more important than the question of gay marriage, which is not really involved here because that has not been decided by the courts. We are playing with fire with this bill, and that fire could destroy the Nation we love.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, reference was made before to the Daschle court-stripping bill. There was no such thing. His bill did not court-strip. In fact, in the case of Biodiversity Associates v. Cables, his bill was judged constitutional. If the courts had been stripped of jurisdiction, they could not have done that.

The CRS says, ``We are not aware of any precedent for law that would deny the inferior Federal court's original jurisdiction or the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of a law of Congress.''

Let us stop with this nonsense that this is not unprecedented.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), distinguished minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington for purposes of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I place into the Record the case of Biodiversity Associates v. Cables, which contrary to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) ruled that the Daschle bill did not apply to preclude court of appeals review as the legislation's constitutional validity.

Biodiversity Associates v. Cable

Biodiversity Associates and Brian Brademeyer, Plaintiffs-

Appellants, Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society,

Plaintiffs, v. Rick D. Cables, in his official capacity as

Regional Forester of the Rocky Mountain Region of the U.S.

Forest Service; Dale N. Bosworth, in his official capacity as

Chief of the U.S. Forest Service; John C. Twiss, in his

official capacity as Supervisor of the Black Hills National

Forest; U.S. Forest Service, Defendants-Appellees, Larry

Gabriel, in his official capacity as Secretary of the South

Dakota Department of Agriculture; Black Hills Regional

Multiple Use Coalition; Black Hills Forest Resource

Association; Meade County, Lawrence County, and Pennington

County, all political subdivisions the State of South Dakota,

* Defendants-Intervenors-Appellees.

* Mr. Cables, Mr. Bosworth and Mr. Gabriel, who are the

successors in office of Lyle K. Laverty, Michael Dombeck and

Darrell Cruea, respectively, have been substituted as parties

pursuant to Fed. R. App. 34(c)(2).

no. 03-1002

united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit

357 F.3d 1152; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 1702

(February 4, 2004, Filed)

Prior History: Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Colorado. (D.C. No. 99-N-2173).

Disposition: Affirmed.

Counsel: Ray Vaughn of WildLaw, Montgomery, Alabama (Steve

Novak of WildLaw, Asheville, North Carolina, with him on the

briefs), for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Kevin Traskos, Assistant United States Attorney (John W.

Suthers, United States Attorney, with him on the brief),

Denver, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees.

Diane Best, Assistant Attorney General (Lawrence E. Long,

Attorney General; Charles D. McGuigan, Assistant Attorney

General, with her on the brief), State of South Dakota,

Pierre, South Dakota, for Defendants-Intervenors-Appellees.

Judges: Before Murphy, Circuit Judge, Brorby, Senior

Circuit Judge, and McConnell, Circuit Judge.

Opinion By: McConnell.

For many years, Congress has been unable to come to

agreement on nationwide legislation to address the dangers of

insect infestation and fire in the national forests. In 2002,

however, in a rider to a supplemental appropriations act for

the war on terrorism, Congress passed legislation applicable

to selected sections of the Black Hills National Forest in

South Dakota and nowhere else, permitting logging and other

clearance measures as a means of averting forest fires. The

legislation specifies forest management techniques for these

lands in minute detail, overrides otherwise applicable

environmental laws and attendant administrative review

procedures, and explicitly supersedes a settlement agreement

between the Forest Service and various environmental groups

regarding management of these lands.

The question presented is whether the extraordinary

specificity of this legislation, coupled with its

displacement of a settlement agreement, amounts to

congressional violation of the Constitution's separation of

powers, by invading the province of the executive branch, the

judicial branch, or both. We hold that it does not. Article

IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2 expressly grants Congress ``Power to

dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations

respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the

United States.'' With respect to this power--like most of its

enumerated powers--Congress is permitted to be as specific as

it deems appropriate. Moreover, settlement agreements between

private litigants and the executive branch cannot divest

Congress of its constitutionally vested authority to

legislate.

background

The first law involved in this case is the law of

unintended consequences. Fire suppression efforts conducted

over more than a century in large parts of the West have had

the unintended effect of transforming forests from savannah-

like grasslands studded with well-spaced large, old, fire-

resistant trees, into thicker, denser forests. Prior to the

arrival of Europeans, these forests experienced frequent, but

relatively mild, forest fires caused primarily by lightning

and Native American activity. These fires would clear the

forest floor of undergrowth and saplings while leaving the

larger trees unscathed. The denser forests produced by fire

suppression accumulate more combustible fuel and are more

vulnerable to infestations, such as mountain pine beetles,

and to fires far more intense and devastating than those of

the pre-settlement era. Forestry experts are divided as to

the response to these conditions.

Some advocate a hands-off approach, allowing fire (outside

areas of human habitation) to reconstitute the forests in

their natural state; some advocate controlled burns; and some

advocate thinning and fuel removal. The role of commercial

logging as part of the last approach has been particularly

controversial.

From 1983 to 1997, the Beaver Park Roadless Area, a

relatively pristine portion of the Black Hills National

Forest, was free of logging activity, apparently because the

land management plan then in place did not allow it. In 1997,

however, the Forest Service approved a new Black Hills

National Forest plan revision (the ``1997 Revised Plan''),

which allowed logging in a significant portion of Beaver

Park's 5,109 acres. It subsequently began preparations for a

timber sale in an area called the ``Veteran/Boulder Project

Area,'' which included most of the Beaver Park land newly

authorized for logging. Especially in a part of the area

known as Forbes Gulch, a major purpose of the logging was to

counter an infestation of mountain pine beetles. The Forest

Service proceeded to clear various administrative hurdles in

preparation for the Veteran/Boulder timber sale, issuing a

final environmental impact statement on the proposed sale and

records of decision approving timber harvest both inside and

outside the Beaver Park Roadless Area.

Several environmental groups, including the Sierra Club,

the Wilderness Society, and Appellant Biodiversity

Conservation Alliance (BCA), objected strenuously to the

timber sale. The Beaver Park Roadless Area was one of the

last areas in the Black Hills National Forest still eligible

for designation as a wilderness, and logging activity would

likely disqualify it from being designated as such. The

environmental groups were also concerned about the effects

that the Veteran/Boulder timber sale would have on the

viability of the northern goshawk population in the Forest.

Accordingly, they brought administrative challenges to both

the particular project and the recently revised plan under

which it was approved.

The groups met with mixed success in their administrative

challenges. Their challenge to the Veteran/Boulder sale was

initially denied in its entirety, though the sale was stayed

pending review of the Revised Plan itself. Then, on October

12, 1999, the Chief of the Forest Service upheld the 1997

Revised Plan in most respects, but found that there was

inadequate support in the record for the conclusion that the

Revised Plan's proposed changes would not threaten the

viability of several species, including the northern goshawk.

He therefore ordered further research into that question. In

the meanwhile, the Forest Service did not stop all pending

projects, but instead provided interim directions that would

apply until the identified defects in the Revised Plan were

remedied. As a result, when the stay on the sale expired, the

Forest Service went forward and put the timber out for bid.

The Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and BCA brought

suit challenging the sale in federal district court, claiming

that the Forest Service could not rely on an ``illegal'' plan

to justify project-level decisions under that plan.

Specifically, they argued that the final environmental impact

statement's conclusion that the Veteran/Boulder sale would

not affect the viability of the northern goshawk was based on

the very findings in the 1997 Revised Plan that had been

disapproved.

In the waning days of the Clinton Administration, in

September of 2000, the Forest Service signed a settlement

agreement with the plaintiff groups, under which it agreed

not to allow any tree cutting in the Beaver Park Roadless

Area, at least until the Service approved a new land and

resource management plan remedying the defects of the 1997

plan. The settlement was approved by the United States

District Court for the District of Colorado, which had

jurisdiction over the lawsuit because the relevant Forest

Service offices were in Colorado.

The process of approving a new plan took much longer than

anticipated. The record does not reveal whether the mountain

pine beetles of western South Dakota were aware of the

settlement agreement or participated in the plan revision

process, but it is clear that they did not wait for

authorization from Washington before undertaking an expanded

program of forest resource exploitation. Just two years after

the initial Veteran/Boulder environmental impact statement,

the mountain pine beetle infestation in this section of the

Black Hills had reached epidemic proportions. According to

Forest Service estimates, the pine beetles killed 114,000

trees in 2002, as compared to only 15,000 in 1999. This

convinced forest managers that immediate harvesting of

deadwood and infested trees, which the settlement agreement

prohibited, was necessary to guard against further spread of

the infestation and potentially disastrous forest fires.

Given that approval of a corrected resource management plan

was still a long way off, the Forest Service and the local

South Dakota interests that shared its concerns had a choice:

they could either attempt to obtain consent to the tree

cutting from the original parties to the agreement, or with

the help of South Dakota's congressional delegation, they

could attempt to overturn the settlement agreement's

prohibition by legislation. The Forest Service began by

trying the consensual approach. Perhaps spurred by the threat

of intervention from Congress, the signatories to the

settlement met with the Forest Service to discuss changing

the agreement in light of the mountain pine beetle problem.

The Forest Service reached agreement with the Sierra Club and

the Wilderness Society, but BCA and Brian Brademeyer, then

chair of the Black Hills Sierra Club, refused to agree to

proposed modifications in the settlement. Stymied, South

Dakota interests turned to Congress for a legislative

solution.

For some years, Congress had been considering national

legislation that would streamline the process of obtaining

environmental approval of logging and other clearance

projects in fire- and disease-threatened national forests;

but these efforts were caught up in the debate over the role

of commercial logging in forest restoration. By limiting

legislative action to a narrow geographical area, however,

and with the acquiescence of some influential environmental

groups and the active support of the state's congressional

delegation, Congress was able to reach agreement on a bill

that would permit logging and other measures in the Beaver

Park Roadless Area. In a rider to an unrelated appropriations

bill, Congress enacted into law essentially the terms of the

modified agreement negotiated between the Forest Service and

the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society. See Supplemental

Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to

Terrorist Acts on the United States, Pub. L. No. 107-206,

Sec. 706, 116 Stat. 820, 864 (2002) (the ``706 Rider'' or

``Rider''). The Rider, which was signed into law on August 2,

2002, required the Forest Service to take a variety of

actions that violated the settlement agreement, see, e.g.,

id. Sec. 706(d)(5), 116 Stat. at 867, and prohibited judicial

review of those actions, id. Sec. 706(j), 116 Stat. at 868.

It also specifically referred to the settlement agreement,

and stated that the agreement should continue in effect to

the extent it was not preempted by the Rider. See id., 116

Stat. at 869.

After the Rider was passed, BCA and Mr. Brademeyer

(hereinafter referred to, jointly, as ``BCA'') went to the

federal district court in Colorado to obtain an order

requiring continued enforcement of the settlement agreement,

claiming that the 706 Rider unconstitutionally trenched on

both the executive and judicial branches. The district court

denied the motion, and BCA appealed.

Mr. Speaker, I place into the Record a memo from the Congressional Research Service that says that Congress has never passed any legislation that denies to the Federal courts the jurisdiction to adjudicate the constitutionality of an act of Congress.

Congressional Research Service

Memorandum

To: House Committee on the Judiciary, Attention: Perry

Apelbaum.

From: Johnny H. Killian, Senior Specialist, American

Constitutional Law, American Law Division.

Subject: Precedent for Congressional Bill.

This memorandum is in response to your query, respecting

H.R. 3313, now pending before the House of Representatives,

as to whether there is any precedent for enacted legislation

that would deny judicial review in any federal court of the

constitutionality of a law that Congress has enacted, whether

a law containing the jurisdictional provision or an earlier,

separate law. We are not aware of any precedent for a law

that would deny the inferior federal courts original

jurisdiction or the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction

to review the constitutionality of a law of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) to close on our side.

(Ms. BALDWIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to a worthy organization, one committed to special children and their families. The Moses and Aaron Foundation's significant and enduring efforts deserve the highest praise, as do the philanthropists who have given of themselves to fulfill its mission.

The Moses and Aaron Foundation Special Fund for Children is dedicated to assisting children with disabilities and their families with a wide range of programs including social, physical, financial and wheelchair assistance, as well as counseling and guidance.

It also provides scholarship funding to educational institutions: collects; purchases; and distributes clothing for children in need and remembers them with presents at holiday time or when hospitalized.

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

The corporate and individual supporters of the Foundation, include Metropolitan Lumber, Bally Total Fitness, Mr. David Buntzman, Mr. & Mrs. Jarred Feldman, Mr. Robert Gans, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Gans, Mr. Avi and Dr. Laura Greenbaum, Mr. and Mrs. David Hirsch, Mr. and Mrs. Ira Rennert, Mr. Eli Rothman, Mr. Mark Selden, and Mr. and Mrs. Clifford Feldstsein. We recognize the special support of Ashley and Liora Herschman, recipients of the Dr. Steven Stowe Acts of Kindness Memorial Award, who by their contributions and kindness have brought happiness and a smile to the faces of hundreds of special children.

On Saturday night July 31, 2004 at the Sullivan County Community College, Lock Sheldrake, New York, the Moses and Aaron Foundation under the Honorary Chairmanship of Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, will sponsor its eighth Summer ``Chazak--Strength'' Concert honoring and paying tribute to special and outstanding children, and is produced by STB Jewish Music Productions. The Guests of Honor will be the Special and Outstanding children, many of whom will perform with the entertainers on stage. More than forty organizations and schools serving the physically and mentally disabled children will be represented.

The Chazak Concert and the Moses and Aaron Foundation's other programs demonstrate a caring and compassionate concern for the quality and dignity of life of others and merit the appreciation of all those who have benefited from its services.

The Moses and Aaron Foundation was founded in memory of Rabbi Dr. Maurice I. Hecht and Aaron Kaploun, both of whom led lives of exemplary community service. It is in this sentiment of communal dedication that the Moses and Aaron Foundation has devoted itself to serving the needs of a unique group in the community.

I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the Moses and Aaron Foundation, an organization which exemplifies the generosity of spirit in American society.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act.

It has been almost 3 years since the September 11 terrorist attacks, and we still do not have sufficiently detailed information about what enters our ports. We know that approximately 6 million shipping containers enter the United States each year, but we do not know what all these containers contain nor do we know what it would cost to inspect all of these containers.

We also know that approximately 6- to 7,000 ships enter the United States each year, but that figure refers mainly to deep-draft vessels. How many smaller ships, or break bulk vessels, enter our ports? We do not really know.

When this bill was considered in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure last year, I offered an amendment that was accepted by committee, asking the Coast Guard to do a study. I wanted to know a complete breakdown of the number and types of containers and ships that enter the United States each year. I also wanted to know the cost that would be incurred if we were to inspect adequately all of these containers and ships.

Once we understand the different elements of what enters our ports, we can establish a better baseline on what we are currently spending on port security. More importantly, we will have a better understanding of how we can improve port security and the cost that will be entailed with each type of improvement.

I am pleased that this port security study provision has been included in the final conference report that is before us today, along with additional reporting requirements regarding container security inserted by the Senate.

This is a good bill that will authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard. It has good provisions that will enable us to get a better handle on proper security in our ports, and I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, time after time in this body, the interests of the middle-class have come in second to the interests of the special interests. One example is the issue of drug reimportation.

Medications in other counties cost 40 percent less than they do here. Even Secretary Tommy Thompson recently acknowledged what Americans know all too well, reimporting prescription drugs from Canada and other industrialized countries is one of the fastest ways Americans can get lower cost drugs. Experts at Boston University estimate Americans would save $60 billion by paying Canadian prices for brand-name drugs. What are we waiting for?

Republicans in Congress continue to stall, promoting the false promise of the new prescription drug discount cards as a substitute for reimportation. When the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) offered an amendment in the agricultural appropriation bill in committee that allowed for the safe reimportation of prescription drugs, Republicans tried to block it and failed. Today, that bill is on the floor. It would allow Americans to purchase these prescription drugs from other countries and lower drug costs in a straightforward way.

We should pass that amendment. I dare the Republicans to block it, as I know they will, because they are the servants of the pharmaceutical companies, and they are even trying to put that into the treaty with Australia.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the McGovern amendment and in opposition to the pending motion to support the McGovern amendment.

Let us remind ourselves what the McGovern amendment says. If we defeat the previous question, we will be able to consider this amendment, and all the amendment says is that a record vote by electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of a vote. Since the majority party here rigged the vote yesterday, rigged the vote for Medicare in November, they are afraid to vote on this amendment, because they want to have the ability to continue to rig the votes.

Let us understand what this really means. A Republican senior leadership aide is quoted in this morning's Congress Daily as saying, a senior GOP aide said, ``It was important to defeat the amendment. It is not normal to hold a vote open, but it is not that unusual either. It happens.''

In other words, whenever it is necessary to defeat the amendment or the vote, we will hold the vote open. What does that mean? It means that if you can hold the vote open for as long as necessary to twist arms for days, if necessary, then whoever holds the gavel can never lose the vote. It means it does not matter who the people elect and send here. It does not matter the convictions of people here. All that matters is who holds the gavel. Because if they can keep the vote open forever until the vote goes right, the majority party can never lose the votes. That means there is no democracy in the House.

So what we are discussing now is are we going to have democracy in the House, are we going to have a democratic form of government in this country. Because what the Republicans have done by showing a willingness to hold the vote open for 3 hours last November, for 38 minutes yesterday, for 2 days next week, who knows, is when a vote matters, they will not lose it no matter what the votes, because democracy does not matter.

For that alone, for destroying democracy in the House, for not being ashamed of it, this party ought to hang its head in shame and ought to surrender in November the right to govern this House until it learns how to be a party in a democracy again.

Mr. Chairman, we have to be very careful that because of this war on the Islamic terrorists we do not destroy our own civil liberties. The PATRIOT Act was passed in great haste, and parts of it do exactly that.

The gentleman from Virginia says this amendment should not be considered without hearings by the Committee on the Judiciary and given proper consideration, but the fact is there were no hearings before we passed the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act was warm to the touch. No one read it before it passed this House. No one knew what was in it. The bill that came out of committee was not the bill considered by the House. So that is where the original flaw lies.

We should now pass this amendment not to make libraries an exempt zone. As the sponsor, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), said, police will still be able to obtain records, so long as they can justify their actions based on probable cause. What is the difference if this amendment passes? The difference is between good police work and a fishing expedition.

Do we want the government rummaging through the records of average Americans without reason, or do we want to insist at the very least that searches be based on probable cause? That is the issue. That is the issue: probable cause.

The Supreme Court of the United States, the Rehnquist court, gave a rap in the teeth to the administration last week for claiming powers that no executive in an English-speaking society has claimed since before Magna Carta. We do not want tyranny. We do not want tyranny.

This amendment is designed to say you can read without being afraid the government will someday reveal what you are reading. We do not want the chilling effect on free speech. If there is a real reason, if the government suspects someone is looking up how to make atom bombs, go to a court and get a search warrant, show probable cause. That is the way it worked for 200 years. It worked against the Nazis in World War II, it worked in the Civil War, and it will work today. We need not surrender fundamental liberty, and we should not.

That is what this amendment is about, and that is why we should urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, in most of our wars, we have done things that have trampled civil liberties in the name of national security. Invariably we end up apologizing for it later when historians say that the internment of the Japanese Americans in World War II or the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 or whatever did not, in fact, aid national security. We are doing it again.

The Supreme Court 1\1/2\ weeks ago made very clear that we cannot simply hold people indefinitely by labeling them an enemy combatant. They gave a broad hint that when the Padilla case comes up, they will tell us that this amendment is mild, and that the power the President claims to throw anybody in jail in the United States because the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) says that the United States is a battlefield and hold them there indefinitely simply on their own say-so with no due process, this is a power that nobody has claimed since before the Magna Carta. Habeas corpus was invented to say that the President is a President; even a king is not a dictator.

Let me finally say that this amendment is necessary to say that we will fight this war against the terrorists, but we will fight it as Americans in the tradition of liberty.

Mr. Chairman, I will quote from Sir Thomas More in the play ``A Man for all Seasons,'' because we are told we must eliminate our traditions of liberty to get at the terrorists. Sir Thomas More was asked: ``So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law?

And More said: ``Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?''

``I'd cut down every law in England to do that.''

And Sir Thomas More finally said: ``Oh? And when the last law was down and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast, and if you cut them down, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.''

And that is why this amendment must pass.

My parliamentary inquiry is twofold. How much time has elapsed on this vote, and how much time will be allowed on this vote beyond what the rules provide for? How much time has elapsed on this vote? The time has expired.

How much time has elapsed on this vote? Are we going to hold this vote open until enough arms are twisted?

I have two parliamentary inquiries. One you did not answer I asked before. How much time has elapsed on this vote so far? Not the minimum. How much time so far has elapsed?

That was not my question.

My second question, sir, is I do not see anyone in the well waiting to vote. Is there anyone in the well waiting to vote?

Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. PELOSI (during the vote). Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the American Association of Invalids and Veterans of World War II from the former USSR. As members of the Russian army, this group fiercely fought German occupation from 1941 to 1945, and after fighting post-war anti-Semitism in their own country, they immigrated to the New York City area. Tuesday marked the 63rd anniversary of Germany's invasion of the former Soviet Union. Today, I am pleased to welcome them to Washington D.C. as they visit the World War II Memorial, and to honor their contribution in fighting for peace and liberty in Europe.

The group of Russian Veterans I honor today fought in many battles along the Russian front in World War II, and in major battles in Odessa, Moscow, and Stalingrad. As we recently honored millions of brave Americans with the opening of the World War II Memorial, I also recognize this group of veterans for their contribution to the Allied victory. Through their efforts in the Russian armed forces, these soldiers played an important role in defeating the Nazis--a victory which they celebrated in the streets of Berlin alongside American soldiers.

Their common experiences in the war, in its aftermath, and as immigrants to the United States bind them deeply to one another. As The New York Times explained, ``As Jews who shared both the deprivations of a brutal war against Hitler's forces and postwar anti-Semitism under a Soviet system they had risked their lives to preserve, their allegiance is not to the former Soviet Union, nor to the Red Army, nor even to Mother Russia, but to one another.'' Though the association began in 1995 with only 30 veterans, it now boasts 3,000 members in New York.

For their patriotism, for their commitment to freedom and democracy in Europe, and for their unyielding commitment to each other, it is my privilege to honor the American Association of Invalids and Veterans of World War II from the former USSR, and to warmly welcome them to Washington D.C.

Mr. Speaker, these feel-good resolutions that we passed last night and are considering today do not change the facts. The facts are that this country is not united. It is very divided over this war. The facts are we did not invade Iraq for the purpose of instituting a democracy. We invaded Iraq because we were told that Iraq threatened us with weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq was responsible, to some extent, for collaborating with al Qaeda and producing the catastrophe of 9/11.

We were misled into Iraq by the administration that either lied to the American people or led us into war by use of falsehoods stated out of ignorance. We are told by this resolution that we are creating a sovereign Iraq now; and, yet, on page 7 of the resolution the American troops there remain under American command. That is a slight contradiction. How can Iraq be sovereign when we control the military over there?

We are told that we are creating a democratic Iraq. Anybody who knows anything knows we are not going to have a democratic Iraq for many years, maybe decades. We will be happy to figure out a way to get out of this quagmire without leaving behind mass chaos, civil war, communal slaughter and betraying the Kurds a third time. We also know that this war in Iraq is a diversion from the real war against the Islamic terrorists who thrust war upon us, a war we must fight but that we are being diverted from. We know that it is harder to take the necessary action, if it may be necessary, if a real nuclear threat of nuclear proliferation arises perhaps in Iran because we cried wolf in Iraq.

How will we persuade Congress or the American people that we have to do something real if a real threat arises, not a phantom threat that we reacted to?

Our actions in Abu Ghraib and perhaps elsewhere still to be properly investigated have shamed this Nation and engendered further hatred of the United States across the world. So let us not celebrate this catastrophe. Let us not pass resolutions that do not bear any relation to the world. Let us figure out how to get out of this catastrophe as best we can.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Millender-McDonald/Ferguson/ Pascrell/Nadler amendment to increase funding for port security. This amendment will transfer $275 million from the Disaster Relief Program to the Port Security Grant Program, which will then provide a total of $400 million for our Nation's seaports. Of course, I support increasing funding by much more than this $400 million, but this amendment is an extremely modest approach to begin doing something feasible right now to protect our Nation, and I firmly support the amendment.

The Coast Guard has said the amount in this amendment is the absolute minimum that is needed. Remember, we are at war. It is time to begin acting like it. We all know an attack can come at any time, and we must do all that we can do to stop it. That means investing more money in port security.

Frankly, this is a drop in the ocean. The fact is 2 percent of the containers of the 6 million containers that come into our ports every year are inspected; 98 percent could have an atomic bomb in them, or radiological bomb, or anything else, and we do not know about it. The fact is we should insist, and this amendment does not do it but it is a step in the right direction, and an amendment to do the right thing would be ruled out of order, the right thing would be to insist that no container gets put on a ship bound for the United States in a foreign port until that container is inspected by an American team in the foreign port. It is a little late to be discovering in New York or Los Angeles that there is a nuclear weapon in a container. And if a foreign country does not want an American team in their port, that is fine, they are sovereign, but they do not ship anything to the United States. That ought to be our policy.

We ought to spend the several billion dollars a year. If we are serious about protecting our people, we ought to spend the several billion dollars a year to inspect every container before it is put on a ship in a foreign port. We are at war, and this is serious business.

Last year on this floor I engaged in a colloquy on this subject, and a distinguished gentleman on the other side of the aisle said well, we will inspect the high-risk containers. And I said, so, well, the terrorists will put the weapons in the low-risk containers.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am aware of that. And I am aware that if I offered an amendment to do what we ought to do, it would be ruled out of order, as it was last year, so I am using this opportunity to talk about this amendment, to talk about what we really ought to do, which the majority would rule out of order if we attempted to do it.

So the fact is what we really ought to do is inspect every container in a foreign port. We cannot do that because the administration does not take the war being waged against us seriously enough. They think the tax cuts are more important for the American people. They will not let us spend that money; the majority will not let us spend that kind of money, so we are reduced to doing what we are talking about in this amendment, which is a very modest step to increase to $400 million the total for port security because maybe we will catch in our ports here what we elect to put in containers abroad because we did not inspect them when they should be inspected.

So I support the Millender-McDonald amendment as a very modest first step. The vote on this amendment will tell whether the Members voting take the security of the American people seriously or not. I urge Members to take the security of the American people seriously and vote for this amendment as a very modest first step.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I think that some of the remarks that were made in the last couple of minutes seem to indicate that not everyone understands what this amendment does. This amendment does not limit the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security to say that next year the same 80 cities or 50 cities and 30 transit organizations that have grants now have to get grants again. It simply says that no more than 80 may get grants, that we cannot dilute it further.

Now, the threat may change, as the distinguished chairman as said, in which case, the Department retains the ability, the discretion to change where the grants go. What this amendment does, however, is to say that the threat is not diluted. The threat is not getting wider and wider and wider. We may have more intelligence that this city is a bigger threat as opposed to that city this year, and the Department would retain the full discretion to shift its funding based on that.

What this amendments says is, look, the Urban Area Security Initiative is the one homeland security program specifically designed to assist the cities that need help the most, the ones that are at the highest threat for terrorist attack. Yet last night, some of us said we should take other funds for homeland security and concentrate them more. This body decided otherwise.

We have certain money guaranteed for every State. But this vote says this pot of money goes only to the cities where the threat is highest, which makes sense. But if the threat is highest, in how many cities can the threat be highest? Seven, 30, 80, 200? It makes the designation of the threat being highest meaningless.

Once you have gotten to distributing the money so widely, then nobody gets very much money. Two years ago, in fiscal 2003, New York City received $150 million from this pot of money. No one thinks the threat has diminished from New York City, and yet this year it received $47 million, a cut of 69 percent. The national capital region's share, the cut was 52 percent.

What we are saying is from this pot of money which is directed, intended for highest-threat areas, keep it for the highest-threat areas. It is almost meaningless when you say the 80 highest-threat areas. It probably should be the 10 or 12, but certainly no more than 80.

Why 80? Because that is what they have diluted it to now. We probably should restrict it further. But to say that the pot of money that goes to the highest-threat areas should go to the 80 highest-threat areas, no more. Whichever the Department decides are the highest-threat areas, that discretion remains, is simply a statement of saying this pot of money really is for high-threat areas, not generally to be distributed.

If we are serious again about protecting our people, we should have some money that is directed at the highest-threat areas based on however we decide the Department decides the highest threat is by whatever the intelligence is. That is what this pot of money is intended to do. To dilute it past 80 different entities makes it meaningless. Therefore, I urge the adoption of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this debate seems to be occurring almost in a vacuum, because it seems to ignore the fact that we are at war. There was a very serious war launched upon us by the Jihadists, the Islamists, whenever you want to call them. They want to kill as many Americans as possible. Where you get the biggest bang for the buck is in an urban area, because you can kill a lot of people in a small area. If a plane crashes on a farm, maybe you kill a person or two, but not too many more.

We are not responding properly. We are not taking it seriously enough. We ought to be spending billions and billions of dollars to properly protect all of the threatened areas of this country, all of our cities, all of our nuclear power plants, all of our chemical plants. We ought to do a threat assessment on the whole country. We ought to repeal some of the tax cuts and spend the money to defend ourselves and take it as seriously as we did in 1942, but we are not doing that.

And since we are not doing that, we have to prioritize the money that we do have, the grossly inadequate amounts of money; maybe more than last year, but the grossly inadequate amounts of money to protect ourselves against our enemies. We have to prioritize them where the real threats are. There should not be a grant on the basis of population.

In 1942, when Admiral Nimitz had to decide where to send the fleet, he did not look at where the population was on the West Coast or in Midway or in Hawaii; he said, where is the Japanese fleet likely to attack, and that is where you spend the money and send the aircraft carriers.

We are probably going to be attacked again. Thousands of people may die, and our job is with the money that is made available to spend it in the way most likely to minimize the casualties in this country.

That is what this amendment seeks to do. Is it fair? No, it is not fair. It would be fair if we spent a few billion dollars more to defend our people. That would be more fair.

But we do not have that money. It is a different debate. We should spend the money based on the threat, and the threat we know, as the gentleman from Illinois said before, we know where the enemy, where Osama bin Laden and his friends and confederates, we know what they are looking at. They are looking at our major urban areas. They are looking at the Space Needle in Seattle, the Sears Tower in Chicago and so forth.

Yes, the bill that the committee propounded in some respects is better than the inadequate proposal that the President made, and I commend the committee for it; but this amendment makes it better yet.

The fact of the matter is, we passed a tax bill earlier today that gives great breaks for tobacco farmers. It has a tobacco buyout in it. I did not hear anybody from New York saying, my God, we should not do that. Nobody in New York benefits. Nobody in New York benefits from the wheat subsidy. We do not complain about that because we do not have any wheat farmers in New York. We should not benefit from the wheat subsidy.

The money that is appropriated by this Congress ought to go where the need is for the purpose for which it is appropriated. The money that is appropriated to defend us in a war ought to go where it is going to be maximally efficient in its use in protecting Americans from enemy attack. That is what this amendment does. That is why it ought to be adopted. Everything else is irrelevant.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Slaughter-Shays-Dicks amendment to increase the amount of funding in this bill for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. In fact, I support the amount that President Bush requested for these agencies. President Bush requested an $18 million increase for the NEA and a $23 million increase for the NEH.

In truth, I would be even happier to support President Reagan's budget for these critical agencies, which was substantially larger. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in this Congress do not seem to think that Presidents Bush and Reagan were right in this respect. Instead, they continue to insist on flat funding for the NEA and only a tiny increase for the NEH, but the fact is flat-level funding is really a cut in the budget. It means that the resources that the NEA needs to do its job gets stretched thinner and thinner every year.

We have a chance today to take a small step in rectifying this shortsightedness today. Whether it is the educational value, the cultural enrichment, or the substantial economic windfalls that the arts and humanities create, the NEA and the NEH are two of the best investments this Nation makes and two of the most productive parts of our budget, although two of the smallest parts of our budget.

When we shortchange the NEA, we deprive our young people of arts education programs that help them develop critical thinking skills and train them to be the next generation of artists, and we deprive our communities of a $134 billion business that generates almost 5 million jobs, $89 billion in household income, and tens of billions of dollars in tax revenues.

When we shortchange these agencies, we deprive ourselves of orchestras, nonprofit theaters, dance companies, opera companies, and touring groups that bring the benefit of the arts and culture to smaller communities throughout our country. We deprive ourselves of the important work of interpreting and preserving our Nation's heritage. For just a fraction of 1 percent of our Federal budget, the NEA and the NEH yield dividends that far outweigh the investment, but the majority leadership has chosen to ignore all of this.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very modest attempt to increase the NEA budget by just $10 million, not even the $18 million suggested by President Bush. It is an attempt to begin undoing the damage that this Congress has done to these agencies in the last 10 years. I urge my colleagues to support this extremely modest amendment, and I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for offering this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, we are asked today to consider the most serious question likely to come before the Congress: how to maintain our government as a democratic representative government in the event of a catastrophic terrorist attack. We must think carefully about the unthinkable, and we must do it now while we have the opportunity to do so.

Unfortunately, this proposed amendment is being brought up by the Republican leadership under a closed rule, with 90 minutes of debate, no hearing in the Committee on the Judiciary or in any committee of this Congress. An alternative proposed by a Republican colleague from California cannot even be debated under this rule. As the ranking Democratic member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the subcommittee with the responsibility to consider all proposed constitutional amendments, I can tell my colleagues that this proposed amendment has never been the subject of a hearing in this Congress.

Let me read what the Republican report on this bill says: ``No hearings were held on H.J. Res. 83,'' period. We have found the time for five hearings on same-sex marriage, and we have found the time to consider a bill to declare the oak tree the official tree of the United States. We have found time for hearings on flag burning but not on how to prevent the destruction of our democratic institutions.

We have found the time to consider a balanced budget constitutional amendment, but no time to consider how to maintain the voice of the American people in the consideration of taxing and spending measures.

These are the twisted priorities of this Republican leadership. How do we protect our democracy in the event of a terrorist attack? Who knows. I would like to know how we can protect our democracy right now. Clearly an issue that is of the highest importance to the Nation, an issue that should be nonpartisan is being handled in a partisan manner. That is anti-democratic.

Is this amendment the right solution to a significant problem? Perhaps. Frankly, I think it goes in the right direction. I have some amendments to it that I would make, if they were in order, if we had time to consider it. We ought to hold hearings.

This House passed a bill to guarantee elections in 45 days. Frankly, I think that 45 days is too quickly. What do you do as a practical matter, especially after a catastrophe, what do you do within those 45 days? I think that the best amendment would probably be something that would be along the lines of this amendment that we are considering now, but I think there ought to be a mandate that there be a special election within a reasonable time period, not 45 days, but maybe 120, 180 days.

What is practical? I think there are other things. But the fact is how do you determine when someone is incapacitated and when he is no longer incapacitated? We ought to have serious hearings. We ought to consider this properly. We ought to consider the gentleman from California's (Mr. Rohrabacher) suggestions, my suggestions, other people's suggestions. We ought to consider the suggestions of law professors. We ought to do this right. This is a serious matter.

Instead, what we have done is take up the chairman's bill. Why? Because he is the chairman. We do not consider anything else. We know that many people think that that is not an adequate bill, but they did not have proper hearings either. Now because of criticism, we are taking up this bill with no amendments and no other considerations.

Frankly, the trouble that Members are having answering these questions is because the Republican leadership will not allow the proper minimal consideration of this issue. That is no way to protect our democracy in these dangerous times.

I would urge that this bill should be sent back to the Committee on the Judiciary. I will vote for it because it is the best thing we have in front of us. We ought not to be in the position we are in.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great sadness to mourn the loss of award-winning actor and passionate social activist Tony Randall who passed away Monday night, May 17th. Though most remembered for his comedic role as Felix Unger in the T.V. series ``The Odd Couple,'' Mr. Randall was a truly versatile performer with a career on stage and screen spanning over sixty years.

After serving four years in the army during World War II, where he rose to the rank of Lieutenant, Mr. Randall made many radio and theater appearances, garnering numerous accolades from critics. By the early 1950s, Mr. Randall made the shift to television, with his Emmy- nominated role of schoolteacher Harvey Weskit in ``Mr. Peepers.'' Soon after, he added movies to his resume, with principal roles in films like the Doris Day-Rock Hudson comedy ``Pillow Talk,'' earning the title from Life magazine of ``the finest . . . comedian the movies have found in decades.'' He crowned his career with his Emmy-award winning role as the worrywart Felix Unger in the Odd Couple, a role that brought him a legion of fans.

However, Tony Randall will be remembered as more than just an actor. He was also a devoted social activist who for 30 years held the position of National Chairman of the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation, an organization dedicated to finding a cure for the terrible neuromuscular disease, Myasthenia. Whether it was his vociferous anti-smoking lobbying, his anti-Apartheid campaign, or his attempt to save the old Metropolitan Opera house, Mr. Randall worked with passion and zeal. Mr. Randall brought this same passion to the National Actors Theater, which he founded in 1991, dedicated to bringing classic works to the public for reasonable prices.

His tireless devotion to his craft and to social justice should be an example to us all. I would like to extend my deepest condolences to Mr. Randall's wife and two children. For years he has touched millions of Americans. He will be sorely missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Debra Brown Steinberg on the occasion of her 50th birthday. Ms. Steinberg, a Lead Attorney for 9/11 families and victims, gave of herself for 2\1/2\ years to help those in need. She worked tirelessly to ensure that 9/11 victims and their families received good legal advice and representation, and provided compassion and human understanding.

Ms. Steinberg is a partner at the New York offices of Cadwalader, Wickersham and Taft located near the site of the World Trade Center. After the attacks, while many New Yorkers became extensions of their television sets and wrote checks to charities, Ms. Steinberg quickly understood how she could best help those whose lives were devastated by this horrific attack. It was clear to her that there would be a need for pro bono legal assistance, especially for the survivors and families of low-income workers whose problems would include immigration, housing, finance, language, education and job training.

The challenges to these families, many of whom were neither citizens nor legal aliens, were overwhelming. Ms. Steinberg responded by organizing and training lawyers and law students, working with nonprofit organizations and unions to learn the challenges and suggest solutions, meeting with elected officials and government agencies to explore ways to overcome bureaucratic obstacles. Moreover, she shared her knowledge and motivated others to volunteer their time and expertise.

Ms. Steinberg has earned the respect, admiration and affection of colleagues, friends and those she shepherded through these most difficult times. Her efforts have inspired those around her and enabled the partners and families of those killed on September 11 to begin to plan for their futures.

All of us in New York, as well as all Americans, have a special place in our hearts for people whose selfless acts make this a better world. Debra Steinberg is one of those very special people and I am proud to know her.

For her commitment to her community, her State, and this Country, it is my privilege to wish Ms. Steinberg a very happy 50th birthday.