Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, there has been a misconstruction here of what this amendment is all about, in particular by the gentleman from Georgia who just spoke. This amendment will restore the Civil Rights Act as it was from 1964 to 1998. It undoes an amendment put there in the dead of night, after no hearings and almost no debate, only 6 years ago. And from 1964 to 1998, the gentleman is quite correct, we had no problems with this.

Now, Community Service Block Grants help communities provide services for low-income families and individuals who address the ever-rising number of people living in poverty through employment programs, housing programs, nutrition programs, and education programs. For years these grants have been praised by both sides of the aisle. Yet today we find ourselves debating the issue of whether or not religious discrimination should play a part in providing these services.

Religious discrimination is not the American way. Asking someone his or her religion in a job interview is simply wrong. Asking people what they believe before they can feed the poor, help the homeless, or provide protection to battered families is, frankly, immoral.

Government saying that this is okay and funding it is a betrayal of our most cherished values.

Now, no one with this amendment, or with the law as it existed between 1964 and 1998, which this amendment would restore, no one is telling any religious person not to adhere to his or her faith or to advocate it. No one is telling religious institutions what to teach its members or who should conduct their religious ceremonies. No one is even telling a religious institution who to hire as the janitor. And if the Presbyterian church wants to say only Presbyterians could be hired to be the janitor or the priest, that is fine.

Nor, despite the rhetoric, are religiously affiliated charities under this amendment barred from participating in publicly funded programs. Every Member, including myself, has worked to obtain public funding for these worthwhile organizations. These religiously affiliated charities are the backbone of our social service delivery system, and no one is suggesting we change this, except for this administration and the Republican majority, which wants to destroy what has worked well for years.

What is at issue here is not whether a church or a religiously based group can have a religious test for anyone at all. What is at issue here is whether they can have a religious test for people, paid for by public funds; paid for by public funds to provide a public service.

If the church wants to have a religious test, as I said, for the minister or for the singers or for the choir director or for the janitor, it is free to do so. But those things are not paid for by public funds. If the church wants to compete for a public contract to provide services to the homeless with public funds, or to provide housing with public funds, it should compete for that contract. It should get that contract if it has the best proposal. But it should not be permitted, as it was not permitted until 1998, to have a religious test to say no Jews or no Irish or no Catholics and no Muslims may apply for the publicly funded position to help administer these public funds. For the nonpublicly funded positions of doing anything at all in the church or in the charity, have any religious test you want; that is religious freedom. It is not religious freedom to put a religious test on employment in a public program paid for by the tax dollars of everybody. Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, atheist, we all pay taxes, and our tax policy, our tax funds, should not be used to discriminate against any of us on the basis of religion.

No one should ever see a sign at a government-funded program that says ``No Catholics need apply'' or ``No Jews need apply'' or ``No Presbyterians need apply,'' but that is what this bill would allow. In the Yorker case, an applicant for employment with public funds was asked on his job application what his religion was, on the job application. Is that the America we want to live in?

I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle complained about what they view as religious tests when it comes to approving judges in the Senate. Why should the person who serves soup in the soup kitchen, the publicly funded soup kitchen, or who aids the poor or the homeless with public funds be entitled to any less consideration?

The amendment in the existing law that we are trying to take out was passed in the dead of night in 1998 with few Members understanding the full implications of the language in it. The gentleman from Virginia and I were here at 1 in the morning to talk about the dangers this kind of publicly funded discrimination posed to our social services programs. Perhaps many of my colleagues were not fully aware of the scope of these change.

Now, as we debate this in the light of day, I urge everyone to take a close, hard look at what is being done. I urge my colleagues to reject this betrayal of our first freedom, our most fundamental of values, the freedom of conscience. I urge support of the Woolsey amendment, and I urge that, again, we are not talking about telling church-based organizations not to participate in public programs; they can do that as they always did prior to 1998. We are simply saying you can only use public funds in a public contract in a nondiscriminatory manner.

I urge support of the Woolsey amendment to restore the law as it was.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to plead for our Nation's family farmers and family fishing operations. And some people may ask why the representative from Manhattan and Brooklyn is rising to plead for family farmers. When I was a child, we had a family farm which we lost to foreclosure because of policies similar to what the majority party is urging on us today. This is the 11th time we have been here to debate a temporary extension of chapter 12. To string farmers along, especially in these very hard times, is simply unconscionable; but this is even worse. Instead of passing this bill last year, the chapter 12 extension bill, when we could have sent it directly to the President, the majority refused to act and allow chapter 12 to sunset. Even now they refuse to act and instead are using family farmers again to try to pass an overall bankruptcy bill that is not going to pass again because the Senate will not go along with it; so they are just using it as a charade and putting at risk all the farmers. But a bill that should not pass anyway. A bill whose main and essentially only effect is to enable the big banks and the credit card companies to reach their hands into the pockets of low- and middle-income people who, because usually of either a divorce or being laid off from their jobs or health emergency, are in bankruptcy and at that time to enable the big banks and the credit card companies to put their hands into these low- and middle- income pockets and take more money out of it for the big banks and the credit card companies in 60 or 70 different ways. That is what this bill does. And this bill is a lot more important, the majority would have us believe, than extending chapter 12 for the benefits of family farmers and family fishing operators.

Even if we pass this bill as amended by putting on the entire bankruptcy reform bill, so-called, on the back of the chapter 12 extension, and even if the Senate agrees to allow the House to circumvent them entirely, family farmers would still have to sit and wait while Congress fiddles.

We do have another choice. We could reject this maneuver entirely and send the 6-month extension to the President today. We could adopt the gentlewoman from Wisconsin's (Ms. Baldwin) substitute and enact a part of this bill that is both uncontroversial and necessary immediately to make chapter 12 permanent and update it to provide needed relief. But the Republican leadership appears unwilling to do either. They appear intent on using the plight of family farmers yet again to advance the agenda of the credit industry and to do so by threatening and hurting the family farmers by engaging in a legislative maneuver that has already resulted in chapter 12's expiring and that they know will now result in its being allowed to lapse further.

This is simply wrong. I urge my colleagues to reject this outrageous stunt. This bill has been on the verge of passing ``any minute'' since 1997. How much longer must our farmers and fishermen and women wait? They have waited long enough. I urge my colleagues to support the gentlewoman from Wisconsin and save our family farms and stop using the plight of the family farmers to try to put the entire agenda of the banks and the credit card companies on the backs of the family farmers. Pass a family farm bill; then bring in a bankruptcy bill. We will debate it on the merits or demerits of that, I would say the demerits; but stop trying to put that entire burden on the family farmers' backs because their backs are already broken.

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) misunderstands the question of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). The question as I understand it was not if someone owes $2 million and can pay $10,000 should be then forced to pay $10,000. Yes. The question was, is it not true that under this bill if he owes $2 million, can afford to pay only $10,000, he can never get relief even if he pays the $10,000 he can afford to.

I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I anticipate that this debate on this motion to instruct will take only a small fraction of the time allotted to it.

Mr. Speaker, this motion would instruct the conferees to strike section 414 of the bill. Section 414 would repeal important protections in the Bankruptcy Code against conflicts of interest on the part of investment bankers involved in the reorganization of a bankrupt company.

Section 414 would relieve investment bankers of the duty of being disinterested persons before they can be retained as professionals by the bankruptcy trustee. This disinterestedness standard has been in the code since 1938. It protects the estate from conflicts of interest by professionals in the case.

Mr. Speaker, many, many people who support this bill, which I do not, are opposed to this provision and support this motion to instruct. Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a very conservative judge who is a member of the Bankruptcy Reform Commission and supports the bill, has written: ``Such a standard can alone protect integrity in the bankruptcy process. If professionals who have previously been associated with a debtor continue to work for the debtor during a bankruptcy case, they will often be subject to conflicting loyalties that undermine their foremost fiduciary duty to the creditors. Strict disinterestedness required by current law eliminates such conflicts or potential conflicts. Section 414, in removing the rigorous standard of disinterestedness, is out of character with the rest of this important legislation, however, and it should be eliminated.''

Mr. Speaker, that letter is as follows:

United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit,

Houston, TX, March 11, 2003.

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,

Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that the House Committee on

the Judiciary will consider H.R. 975, bankruptcy reform

legislation, on the morning of March 11, 2003. I also

understand that the Committee may consider whether or not to

retain Section 414 of the bill, which would amend the

``disinterested person'' standard codified at 11 U.S.C.

Sec. 101(14). As a former member of the National Bankruptcy

Review Commission and, in that capacity, a consistent

advocate of maintaining strict disinterestedness standards

for bankruptcy professionals, I urge the Committee not to

change existing law. I support Congressman Bachus's effort to

remove Section 414.

The National Bankruptcy Review Commission was asked to

recommend a modification of the disinterestedness standard in

order to accommodate, as I recall, the geographic growth and

increasing sophistication of professional firms of all kinds

involved in Chapter 11 bankruptcvy practice. Despite fervent

lobbying by prominent bankruptcy professionals and scholars,

the Commission resisted making such a recommendation. We

voted (by a lopsided majority, I believe) to retain the

standard as it has existed since the 1930's.

The Commission report cites two reasons for retaining a

strict prophylactic standard for all bankruptcy

professionals. These are worth brief restatement. First, such

a standard can alone protect integrity in the bankruptcy

process. If professionals who have previously been associated

with the debtor continue to work for the debtor during a

bankruptcy case, they will often be subject to conflicting

loyalties that undermine their foremost fiduciary duty to

the creditors. Strict disinterestedness, required by

current law, eliminates such conflicts or potential

conflicts.

Second, enforcing a strict standard of disinterestedness is

necessary to maintain public confidence in the integrity of

the bankruptcy system. A bankruptcy case should not be

subject to the criticism that professional fees are generated

to no purpose or for a bad purpose such as delay. The courts'

efforts to ensure that fees remain reasonable are enhanced

when, because of the complete disinterestedness of

participating professionals, no hidden motives may be imputed

to the actors in the case.

One need not focus solely on today's high-profile

bankruptcy cases to realize that the challenge of maintaining

disinterested professional services has permeated modern

corporate reorganization law. The Commission, for instance,

voted to retain the original standard in the wake of the

criminal conviction of a prominent bankruptcy lawyer and

several well-known instances in which law firms were required

to disgorge part of their fees--all for violating

disinterestedness standards. Given the ongoing nature of the

problem, I do not see how any professional group can

advocate, consistent with the public interest, eliminating

the statutory requirement of disinterestedness. Moreover, as

it appears likely that many future complex bankruptcy cases

will arise in which the role of investment bankers will have

to be explored, it seems particularly unwise to grant that

group--alone among bankruptcy professionals--a status

insulated from the strict disinterestedness requirement.

Since the close of the Commission's work in October 1997, I

have been a proponent of the bankruptcy reform legislation

that has been repeatedly passed by Congress. I still believe

the bankruptcy reform legislation is essential to restoring

integrity to personal and business bankruptcies, redressing

the imbalances and opportunities for manipulation that plague

current law, and encouraging individual responsibility in

financial affairs. Section 414, in removing investment

bankers from a rigorous standard of disinterestedness, is out

of character with the rest of this important legislation,

however, and it should be eliminated.

Very truly yours,

Edith H. Jones.

Mr. Speaker, why are we voting on this technical issue? Because, Mr. Speaker, it has significant real-world consequences for employees, retirees, shareholders, and creditors of a bankrupt company. Current law prevents an investment banker who had been part of the financial affairs, and perhaps of the problems, of a bankrupt company from being responsible during the bankruptcy for advising, organizing, and overseeing the reorganization.

Anyone who has read a newspaper in the last few years cannot fail to understand the importance of this motion. This deals with conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest among investment bankers, accountants, management, and other insiders have been at the heart of the most outrageous corporate scandals that have ended up in bankruptcy court, which have been in the headlines in our front pages in the last few years.

Perhaps when this provision was first proposed several years ago, some Members may have thought it was a minor technical change. No one any longer can believe for a moment after everything that has happened that this is just a small benign change.

The chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, William Donaldson, has written to Senators Leahy and Sarbanes in opposition to this provision. The former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Arthur Levin, has written to us in opposition to this provision.

Mr. Speaker, that letter is as follows:

U.S. Securities and

Exchange Commission,

Washington, DC, May 22, 2003.

Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,

U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,

U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Senators Leahy and Sarbanes: Thank you for requesting

the Commission's views on Section 414 of H.R. 975, which

would amend the ``disinterested person'' definition in the

conflict of interest standards of the Bankruptcy Code to

remove the specific provisions covering investment bankers.

On May 7, in response to a question from Senator Sarbanes at

a hearing of the Senate Committee on Banking Housing and

Urban Affairs on the Impact of the Global Settlement, I

expressed my personal views about this amendment. Now I am

pleased to convey the view of the Commission, which is that,

while it may be possible to draft language that would address

some of the concerns of the proponents of the amendment,

Congress should proceed very cautiously before loosening any

conflicts of interest restriction. While we recognize that

this one-size-fits-all statutory exclusion is controversial,

we believe that it would be a mistake to eliminate the

exclusion in a similar one-size-fits-all manner at a time

when investor confidence is fragile.

The current ``disinterested person'' requirement was

adopted at least in part in response to a 1938 study by the

Securities and Exchange Commission that provided extensive

documentation and analysis of abuses in corporate

reorganization. The study concluded that a firm that served

as underwriter for a company's securities should not advise

the company about distributions to those security holders in

a reorganization plan. It further found that such a firm

should not advise the company about potential claims against

those involved with the company prior to the bankruptcy since

this often would involve an assessment of transaction in

which the firm participated. However, we should note that in

the 65 years since the 1938 study was issued, bankruptcy

practices and procedures have improved significantly with the

addition of a dedicated bankruptcy judicial system, the

establishment of the U.S. Trustee's office, and the

strengthening of active creditors' committees.

We are aware of the arguments of proponents of the

amendment that the current statutory exclusion is too broad

because it covers firms that participated in any underwriting

of the debtor, even if it was years ago and the firm has had

no further involvement with the debtor. However, if the

exclusion is eliminated entirely, we are concerned that the

general protection in the statute--which relies on the judge,

at the outset of the proceedings, to forbid those with

materially adverse interests to the estate, its creditors, or

its equity security holders from advising a company in

bankruptcy--may well be insufficient.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed

amendment. If you or your staff need any further information,

please contact my office.

Sincerely,

William H. Donaldson,

Chairman.

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

I have two basic comments. First, in response to the comments of my distinguished colleague from New York, it is not the case that anyone who worked as an investment banker for the banker company 50 years ago is affected by this provision.

If you actually read the provision in the statute book, a disinterested person is defined as a number of things, but it says the following: ``Was not an investment banker for any outstanding security of the debtor.'' If it is still outstanding, then he has still got a relationship and he still has an interest in that. ``Has not been, within 3 years before the date of the finding of the petition, an investment banker,'' et cetera. So in other words, it is a 3-year bar for outstanding securities. So the situation we were told about a moment ago does not apply.

Let me say that this is not a question of discretion; it is a question of protection. And, again, all the professionals in the field, everyone to whom we ought to be looking for guidance in this comes to the same conclusion. I do not claim to be an expert in investment banking or bankruptcy law, but everyone who is basically says the same thing.

I am going to read three quotes and that will be that. This is from the senior professor at Harvard Law School, an expert on bankruptcy, Elizabeth Warren: ``There is a reason why the professionals who have worked for a business that collapses into bankruptcy are not permitted to stay on.

``The company must go back after bankruptcy and examine its old transactions. Having the same professionals review their own work is not likely to yield the most searching inquiry.''

Arthur Levitt, former Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission: ``I haven't read a single argument made by the investment banks that would persuade me that that prohibition should be changed. What we are talking about is a significant potential conflict of interest, and I think it is outrageous that investment banks would even try to go down that road.''

William Donaldson, the current Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission: ``We are aware of the arguments of proponents of the amendment that the current statutory exclusion is too broad because it covers firms that participated in any underwriting by the debtor, even if it was years ago, and the firm has had no further involvement with the debtor. However, if the exclusion is eliminated entirely,'' which is what this provision does, ``we are concerned that the general protection in the statute, which relies on the judge at the outset of the proceedings to forbid those with materially adverse interest to the estate, its creditors or its equity and security holders from advising a company in bankruptcy may well be insufficient.''

So there is a unanimity of judgment among the people involved in protecting shareholders and stakeholders and 401(k)s and employees and everybody else with a stake in this matter. We should not do this. And just one further observation. This has been the law since 1938. We have had no problems with it. We have no great hordes of people coming to our offices saying, Get rid of this. It has caused all kind of problems. Leave it alone.

Vote for the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.

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

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation.

I want particularly to congratulate Mr. Delahunt who first introduced the Innocence Protection Act several years ago, and has worked tirelessly on this matter ever since. I want to thank the chairman and the members of the committee from both sides of the aisle for working together to put politics and sound bites aside and to pass meaningful legislation to fight crime and advance the cause of justice.

I am pleased that this bill includes the modified Innocence Protection Act that aims to reduce the possibility that innocent people will be put to death. I understand this is a delicate compromise, but I must say that this bill is only a first step, not a final step, in our efforts to reform our Nation's capital punishment laws. These laws are broken and major reform and full funding of this legislation is necessary to prevent the innocent from being wrongfully convicted and executed.

It is imperative that we eliminate the shameful backlog of untested rape kits, and this bill will go a long way toward that goal. On the issue of rape kits, again, let me say, ``It's about time.'' Many Members have been personally involved in the fight to test rape kits for several years now. I have worked with NOW, RAINN, and Liftime Television to raise awareness of this issue and to build consensus for decisive action. Together we have pushed, prodded, and demanded that Federal funding be provided to test these kits right away. Today, we are one step closer to our goal.

But we are not there yet. These programs still need to be funded, and I am hopeful that we will not simply authorize funding for these programs, but also actually appropriate funding when the time comes to pass the Commerce Justice State appropriations bill.

This issue is too important to ignore. Police Departments must have the resources they need to solve crimes and put criminals behind bars.

I am pleased that this bill includes a provision similar to the ``Rape Kit DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act'' which I introduced back in March 2002, which would have provided $250 million to eliminate the rape kit backlog 2 years ago. The bill before us today acknowledges that we were right back then when we requested major increases in funding, since this bill offers even more funding for this task. In addition, I am pleased to see that, like my bill, the phrase ``rape kits'' has been specifically added to our current law to further underscore the need for this funding to address rape crimes in particular. These heinous crimes deserve our full attention and the victims of the crimes deserve the certainty that DNA evidence can bring to them.

Once again, I am pleased to support this bill because it represents a serious effort to combat crime, locate and apprehend rapists, and use powerful evidence to put them in prison.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, first I would inform the gentleman from Wisconsin that it is the Yankees as well as the Red Sox game.

Secondly, I would ask the distinguished gentleman, the distinguished chairman, there are a number of Members who desire at some point tonight to strike the last word, and if we agree to this unanimous consent request, would that preclude an opportunity at

some point tonight of striking the last word?

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that some Members would be interested in doing that after the last vote tonight, but as long as it will be in order.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, last spring Congress approved a $673 billion supplemental appropriation for our troops in Iraq. I voted for that appropriation because I felt that, regardless of whether or not we should have invaded Iraq, the fact is that we are there now, and we cannot afford to allow Iraq to slide into civil war and disorder. That is what happened in Afghanistan after the defeat of the Soviet Union. The failure of the world community to rebuild that country allowed it to become an extremist theocracy and a haven for al Qaeda with catastrophic results.

But we have not received an accounting of the use of those funds. We have discovered that American soldiers have died because, despite the funds we voted, the administration did not supply all our troops with Kevlar plates for their body armor or armor plates for their Humvees. We have learned of no-bid contracts for Halliburton and a $15 million contract for cement factories that the Iraqis can build for $80,000. We have not learned of realistic plans to share the costs and the burdens with other countries and to prevent the nationalist guerrilla war against us by demonstrating to the Iraqi people that we are running an international reconstruction, not an American occupation.

Last October, I voted against authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. I believed that the resolution was far too broad a blank check to the President and that it would send us down a perilous course. We know now, as some suspected then, that the administration misled us when it asserted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that it was developing nuclear weapons, that it had cooperated with al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks, and that it posed an imminent threat to this country.

I believed then, as I believe now, that the war in Iraq has diverted resources and attention away from the deadly, serious war waged against the United States by al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups, a war which poses a very real threat to our safety and security, and to which I do not believe we

are giving sufficient resources or attention.

This bill is another blank check to the President. I cannot support it, given the administration's obvious failure to plan for the realities of postwar Iraq and its refusal to make good faith adequate proposals to share the power and the burden of the reconstruction of Iraq so that our soldiers do not continue to do almost all the dying and our taxpayers almost all the paying for the cost of cleaning up the mess in Iraq.

I cannot support it, given the administration's insistence on increasing the deficit and the debt burden on our children and grandchildren by refusing even to let us vote on paying for this bill by reducing the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.

Mr. Chairman, we need not approve this bill in order to support our troops. The $63 billion we approved last spring will fund the military personnel and operations through at least next April and May.

We should defeat this bill and insist that the President and the Republican leadership of the House come back to us with a proposal that accounts for the public's money, protects our troops and shares the burden with other nations. We have the time and the ability to do this job right.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the American Jewish community, I am proud to support the designation of an ``American Jewish History Month''. For the last 350 years, Jews have lived and worked in the United States, and have contributed significantly to the shaping of our country. Dating back, prior to the Revolutionary War, Jews have been an integral part of our nation. Over the last three and a half centuries, there have been many famous American Jews, such as Louis Brandeis, the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice, and Lewis Charles Levin, the first Jewish Congressman. Jews have fought and died for our country in every war in the history of the United States. Jews are responsible for the creation of countless Broadway plays, Pulitzer prize novels and Academy Award winning films. American Jews have won Olympic medals, Super Bowls and have been elected to various Sports Halls of Fame.

I need to look no further than my own district to be reminded that Jews have literally left their mark on America. The base of the Statue of Liberty has the poem ``The New Colossus'' inscribed on it, which was written by Emma Lazarus, an American Jew. American Jews have been a symbol of both immense religious pride, and fierce patriotism.

American Jews are doctors and lawyers, politicians and CEO's, actors and athletes, veterans and volunteers. Jews are fully immersed in this nation's fabric and are one of the primary reasons the material of this country is so strong. I urge you to help celebrate 350 years of Jews in America and to remember that without American Jews, our country would not be as great as it is.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support the Syria Accountability Act. This legislation is long overdue.

Syria has funded and encouraged organized terrorism in the Middle East and around the world. Syria controls the Lebanon-Israeli border from the Lebanese side where kytusha rocket attacks are regularly launched against innocent Israeli citizens. Syria openly houses Hamas and Hezbollah training grounds, and its government and citizens knowingly fund their criminal activity.

Just today, terrorists operating in the West Bank murdered four U.S. citizens. Were they trained and funded by Syria? We should not have to wonder. If Syria provides aid and comfort to the terrorist enemy, it should not receive aid and comfort from the United States.

This legislation is modest in comparison to the recent actions the United States took against Iraq, and it is clear that Syria provides a lot more aid to terrorist organizations than Iraq ever did. This bill provides for economic sanctions against Syria for restrictions on diplomatic activity in the United States and, most importantly, calls for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.

I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for his strong leadership in championing this legislation. I give it my full support, and I look forward to the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I was very much pleased to participate along with my wife on this trip to Israel, and I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) in organizing this trip. It is not my first trip. It is probably my 7th or 8th trip to Israel. And as always, I was impressed by looking at different facets of Israeli society and seeing a vibrant, free, democratic, modern country, so different from so many other countries in the Middle East.

I had many experiences there, but one of the things I always do when I go someplace else is read the local newspapers. Reading the newspapers in Israel, you are struck by the debates on politics and on policy, on peace, you are struck on the political give and take, by the criticism in the newspapers of the government and its leaders, by the debate of the members of the various political parties, all of this so reminiscent of the democracy in our own country, in the United States.

In the debates in the press, in talking to the people, one could feel the palpable yearning for peace that Israel is so desperate for. One could not escape the fact that Israel is a country fighting a war on terrorism alongside the United States. One could never escape the fact that Israel is targeted by hostile neighbors, by hostile terrorists who have had over 100 suicide bombings, homicide bombings, really, targeted at civilians, men, women and children.

Sometimes we read in the papers here that in the last 3 years since violence began in September of 2000, about 800 Israelis have been killed and countless more wounded, maimed. And Palestinians were also killed. But what you do not read all the time is that most of the Israelis who were killed and maimed were children and old people and women, children simply at a pizza parlor or teenagers at a dance hall or people at a wedding or a Bar Mitzvah or just going about their business, on their way to work on a bus. Most of the Palestinians who were killed were armed people engaged in attacking someone engaged in terrorism.

One is also struck when visiting Israel, in going around Israel, by how small the country actually is. It is one thing to look at a map and talk about Israel and the territories, the West Bank and Gaza and the Sinai and Egypt and what territories should constitute a new Palestinian state, what territorial concessions or compromises Israel should make. It is all very academic on a piece of paper; until you are there, and you see how small this country is. When you go to a place, a hill on a farm, and you can look and see on one side, the Jordan River, the boundary between the West Bank and Jordan, and on the other side, you can see from the same hill the Mediterranean, how narrow the country is and how remarkable, in those terms, is the willingness of Israel to give up so much territory to form an independent Palestinian state, as Israel offered to do at Camp David and at Taba in 2000.

We saw the monitoring station in the north of the country. We visited a station, really a couple of trailers, a few hundred feet from the Lebanese border. We saw the balloon. It looked like a barrage balloon, tethered a couple of hundred feet up, but it did not hold weapons. It held cameras. And sitting in this monitoring station were young girls, 18-year-old girls in army uniforms looking at the monitors to try to prevent terrorists from coming over the border to attack and killing at random, to kill men, women and children at random. And this is what the army has to occupy itself with.

We saw also part of where the fence is going to be. The fence has been the object of some controversy. But the Gaza Strip has a fence around it. People go through the fence, through check points, but not one homicide bomber has come from Gaza. A million and a half people in Gaza, not one homicide bombing has come from Gaza into Israel successfully. Plenty have tried, but not one has succeeded to wreak mayhem and murder on civilians. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the West Bank.

Someone once said that good fences make good neighbors. Well, you need a lot more than good fences to make good neighbors, but one might say that good fences are very important to make good neighbors. And no one can deny the necessity for Israel to try to prevent people from crossing over to attack villages and towns in Kibbutzim and just plain people going about their business.

The United States is erecting a fence between at various places between the United States and Mexico to prevent illegal immigration. No, we do not have a problem, thank God, with people trying to cross from Mexico into San Diego to commit murder. If we have a problem, it is because people want to cross to get jobs. But the Israelis have that problem. And we saw where we were how narrow the place was. How there was an Israeli town and not 200 yards away an Arab-Palestinian village, which was not in Israel but was in the West Bank, and in between them simply a depression in the ground and nothing to stop people from walking across.

That is why we need the fence. That is why Israel needs the fence, to protect the lives of men, women and children. And it ill-behooves anyone to criticize a defensive fence against terrorism.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe in the necessity of a Palestinian state. Some people ask me, do I believe that the Palestinians have a right to a state? My answer is no, I do not think so. I do not see why the Palestinians have any more right to an independent state than the Baaths or the Kurds. On the other hand, if Israel is going to be a safe state and is going to achieve peace and is going to remain a Jewish democratic state, then there has to be a Palestinian state, because there is no alternative.

The question, of course, is, can you have a Palestinian state with peace and security for Israel? Is there someone you can deal with to negotiate that, and that is what Israel tried to do. And if you read what Dennis Ross, President Clinton's chief negotiator at Camp David, or what some of the others have said, they offered, the Israelis offered a Palestinian state in 100 percent of Gaza, 97 percent of the West

Bank, plus territory from Israel proper so that the Palestinians could say they got the equivalent of acreage of 100 percent and Arafat turned it down. And Arafat then started a war which is what we have had for the last almost 3 years, 3 years and a couple of weeks.

So we hope and pray for peace. This trip showed us just how small Israel is; how necessary the fence is, how necessary the Israeli defense measures are; how important Israel's part in the war on terrorism is; and how, when people say that the main problem is the Israeli occupation, how wrong that is. The Israeli occupation will end when there is an ability to have a peaceful solution for Israel and to have security for Israel without Israel having to occupy the land for security purposes. We saw that very clearly and that is what we have to understand. And the United States must engage to continue our alliance with Israel, the only free democratic people in the area, the only reliable ally for the United States in the area, and the moral necessity of defending that freedom and democracy, and the political necessity of allying in the war on terrorism with our only reliable ally in the war on terrorism in the Middle East, Israel.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we have a very bad combination: Members of Congress who want to play doctor and Members of Congress who want to play Supreme Court. When we put the two together, we have a description for some very bad medicine for the women of this country.

Today's vote is different from previous votes. Every Member of this House should understand that this is not a free vote. This legislation will become law unless we stop it. We cannot count on the Senate, we cannot count on the President, and remember that this President is trying to pack the Supreme Court with reactionary justices. If this bill becomes law, it will be the first time since Roe vs. Wade was decided that Congress will have acted to criminalize the constitutional right to choose.

No one should think it will end here. This is only the first, not the last, bill that people who want to turn back the clock will bring forward. If my colleagues do not believe that this bill is intended as a direct assault on Roe, they should ask themselves why was a nonbinding statement supporting the right to choose pursuant to Roe and opposing efforts to overturn it dropped from the bill in the conference committee? Do not be fooled. Do not listen to what they say. Look at what they are doing.

Although this bill is blatantly and facially unconstitutional, the Supreme Court's decision striking down an almost identical Nebraska statute was a close vote. This administration is determined to pack the Court with justices committed to eliminating the fundamental right to keep government out of the most personal decisions involving women's life and health. So even though this bill is blatantly unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court, one cannot count on the Supreme Court maintaining that view if the President succeeds in packing it with reactionaries, which is why this bill is before us.

We will not find the term ``partial birth abortion'' in any medical textbook. The authors of this legislation prefer the language of propaganda to the language of science.

For one thing, the rhetoric behind this bill is really a rhetoric aimed at late-term abortion, at fetuses that look like human beings, that are almost born; late-term fetuses, as people understand the term. The fact is, though, that if we want to ban late-term abortions, I do not think there will be many people in this Chamber who would oppose that. Forty-one States have done so against almost no opposition.

The Supreme Court has said that we have the power to ban abortions after viability. Most States have done so. If the horror that is to be addressed, the alleged horror that is to be addressed is as described, just put in a bill that says no abortions after fetal viability. Very few people would oppose it. It would pass, and that would take care of the problem. But that amendment was also defeated in conference because that is not the intent here.

One of the problems with this bill from a constitutional point of view is that the term is so vaguely defined that it could easily refer to various different procedures that are necessary in second trimester, not late term, but second trimester, pre-viability abortions, when there are certain health problems attendant on the pregnancy. This bill is intended to forbid that, too, and to chill doctors from performing certain techniques which may be the best from a health point of view in second trimester abortions lest they have

a prosecution under this bill, even though it is not clearly defined.

This bill reads as if the authors carefully studied the Supreme Court's decisions and then went out of their way to thumb their noses at 30 years of clear law. Unless the authors think that when the Court has made repeated and clear statements over 30 years of what the Constitution requires that the Court was just pulling our leg, this bill must be considered facially unconstitutional.

Outrageously, both from a substantive point of view and a constitutional point of view, there is no health exception. A partial birth abortion as defined would be prohibited even where necessary to preserve the health of the mother. That is just outrageous on its face. But, in addition to this, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that we must have a health exception in a bill even with respect to post- viability abortions if that bill is going to be constitutional. We cannot prohibit abortions or abortion procedures necessary to save the life or health of the mother.

The exception for a woman's life in this bill is so narrow that it violates the Constitution and will place doctors in the position of trying to guess just how grave a danger to her life a pregnancy must pose to a woman before they can be confident that protecting her will not result in jail time.

I know that some of my colleagues do not like the clear requirements of the Constitution, but that is the law of the land, and no amount of rhetoric will change that. The drafters of this bill, as the distinguished chairman said a few minutes ago, say that the findings included in the bill, the findings that so-called partial birth abortions are never medically necessary, that these findings get around the constitutional requirement as established by the Supreme Court, that a medical procedure necessary to preserve the life or health of a woman cannot be denied. But Congress is not a doctor, and certainly Congress is not the doctor in a particular procedure performed on a particular woman. Only her doctor, who knows her medical condition, can decide what is medically necessary.

The Supreme Court has made clear that it is not interested in Congress' findings of fact, despite what the distinguished chairman said. Boerne and other cases, though they pay lip service to Congress' findings of fact, toss them out routinely. The Supreme Court will not ignore the significant body of medical opinion contradicting what the sponsors of the bill say.

Many supporters of this bill think all abortion is infanticide. They are entitled to their view, but it is not the mainstream view. This bill would foist this fringe belief on American women. This bill would criminalize abortions in the second trimester and turn doctors treating women with dangerously deformed fetuses, those that can never be born alive, into criminals.

We could prohibit post-viability abortions in situations in which a woman's life and health is not in jeopardy, but this bill does not do that. That is where the abortion itself would not put the woman's life or health in jeopardy. But that is not what this bill does. Forty-one States, as I said already, ban post-viability abortions. Almost nobody would oppose that bill. But that is not this bill.

Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, and one of the most radical opponents of a woman's right to choose, has called this bill a political scam and a public relations gold mine. He is right. The real purpose of this bill is not as we have been told, to save babies, but to save elections. Unfortunately, today, women's health takes a back seat to politics and political extremism.

Hopefully, the Constitution still serves as a bulwark against such efforts. Regrettably, we cannot be sure the current efforts to pack the courts will not succeed. We should all vote today as if women's lives depend on it. They do. And I hope this Chamber, this House will reject this bill, as it ought to.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to comment on some of what we just heard.

Mr. Speaker, the American Medical Women's Association, an organization of 10,000 women physicians and medical students dedicated to promoting women's health and advancing women in medicine, states, ``We recognize this legislation is an attempt to ban a procedure that in some circumstances is the safest and most appropriate alternative available to save the life and health of the woman.''

The American Public Health Association with 50,000 members from over 50 public health occupations writes the same. So to say it is universally recognized that there is no medical necessity for the procedures described in this bill or perhaps described in the imprecise definition of this bill is not correct.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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.)

Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard repeatedly, including from the last speaker, that so-called partial-birth abortion is never a necessary procedure to save the life and health of the mother, but fact is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and I am reading now from the committee report, minority views, ``the leading professional association of physicians who specialize in the health care of women, has concluded that the D & X'' procedure, which is one procedure described by partial-birth abortion, ``is a safe procedure and may be the safest option for some women. ACOG has explained that intact D & E, including D & X, is a minor, and often safer, variant of the `traditional' nonintact D & E. ACOG has also stated that D & X `may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman. Only the physician, in consultation with the patient and based on her circumstances, can make this decision.' ''

That is why relying on this kind of medical evidence, ``the Supreme Court concluded in Stenberg that `significant medical authority supports the proposition that in some circumstances D & X would be the safest procedure.' Indeed, the Court concluded that `a statute that altogether forbids D & X creates a significant health risk.' ''

So much for the so-called findings in this bill, the Supreme Court has already thrown them in the trash basket.

That is why, in addition to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, numerous other medical groups have publicly opposed attempts by Congress to pass this legislation, and among those which have labeled this legislation as injurious to women's health, and therefore they oppose it, are the American Public Health Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Medical Women's Association, the California Medical Association, the American College of Nurse Practitioners, the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, the Association of Schools of Public Health, the National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Reproductive Health. And, finally, ``contrary to the claims of the sponsors of'' this bill, ``the American Medical Association does not support any criminal abortion ban legislation.''

So, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has already said, in so many words, that any legislation that altogether forbids some of the kinds of procedures that would be described by this legislation creates a significant health risk for women, and, therefore, is unconstitutional.

Mr. Speaker, I said a moment ago that the arguments that this is never a medically necessary procedure are refuted by all the different medical groups that I named and by the specific findings of the Supreme Court in the Stenberg case. And all the nonsense about findings by Congress will not avail to make this bill constitutional against the finding by the Supreme Court. This is a Supreme Court that does not care that much about findings by Congress anyway, and that has said, in so many words, that a statute that altogether forbids D & X, one of the procedures that clearly would be outlawed by this bill, creates a significant health risk and an unconstitutional health risk.

So this bill is clearly unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because it does not give people a right to do what the physician and the patient regard as the safest procedure to save the health and life of the mother, which the Supreme Court says they must do. But beyond that, this is clearly an assault on Roe v. Wade, whatever else anybody may say.

If it is not an assault on Roe, if it is not deliberately an assault, getting the nose under the camel's tent to try to ban all abortions, to try to say that women should not have the right to make this choice, to try to say that the men and women in this Chamber have more to say about a woman's health choice than she does herself, then why did the conferees, the members of the conference, remove the nonbinding language that said this did not attack Roe v. Wade? Because they were a little more honest. The Senate was a little more honest than the people in this House are being. They recognize this for what it is, an attack on Roe v. Wade, and, frankly, the majority Members of the House also wanted to remove that language, and they were honest the day before yesterday.

So, Mr. Speaker, the current Supreme Court clearly considers this unconstitutional. A future Supreme Court packed with reactionary appointees by the President might not. This puts at risk the right of women to choose. And the fundamental question here is, as it has always been, there are fundamentally different religious views about when life begins, about what is appropriate and what is not appropriate, and we are all entitled to our views, be they motivated by religion or moral fervor or whatever. What we are not entitled to do is to use the force of law to impose the religious views of some people on other people who do not agree with that and to say to a woman they must risk their life, they must risk their health because we do not think it is right for them to have an abortion. That is what this is about.

That is what this is about. The right to choose is the key right here, and this bill is a direct assault on that. Therefore, we ought to oppose it. It will be a sad day when this House passes this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my great personal pleasure to rise today in cognition of the Association of Theatrical Press Agents and Managers (ATPAM) for its contribution to the art of stage entertainment so immensely enjoyed by residents of New York and by audiences throughout the Nation and around the globe.

This year marks the seventy-fifth anniversary of ATPAM, an organization that has maintained a prominent place in the entertainment industry since it first received its charter from the American Federation of Labor in 1928. Since its inception, ATPAM, a coalition of press agents, publicity and marketing specialists, company managers and house and facilities managers, has devoted its resources to the enrichment of stage entertainment and the health, vitality, and success of its members.

ATPAM has also dedicated considerable efforts to philanthropy in its support of industry-wide charities such as the Actor's Fund of America and Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS. ATPAM was able to expand that objective even further when it decided to affiliate with IATSE and carry its good work to a broader community. Most notable are ATPAM's exemplary actions in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York. ATPAM members accepted salary cuts in order to keep Broadway going after 9/11, and mobilized members of other New York theatrical unions to follow their lead.

The Association of Theatrical Press Agents & Managers has been an inspiration to the entertainment industry since its founding seventy- five years ago, and remains a tremendous force for the cultural arts of New York City and beyond. Today, I am proud to stand before Congress and join ATPAM in their celebration.

Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is, generally, a good bill. The distinguished chairman talked about containers being searched in Newark and Los Angeles. He said the Container Security Initiative will target high-threat cargo before it reaches U.S. shores.

Mr. Speaker, it only takes one weapon of mass destruction, in one container, to destroy an American city.

Mr. Speaker, this country will not be safe until every container is searched and sealed and certified by an American inspection team before it is put on a ship in a foreign port. This country will not be safe until no container can be put on that ship before it is searched and sealed by the American team in the foreign port, every container, not just the high-threat ones.

The terrorists know we will inspect the high-threat containers; so they will put the bomb in the low-threat container. We cannot depend on the good guys, that we know who the good guys are who are, long-time shippers to us. How do we know that some terrorist is not an employee of a good-guy shipper? We must spend the 6 or 7 or $8 billion a year that it will take to put an American inspection team to search every container before it is sent to our shore and the additional money to electronically go around every ship 100 miles off our shore before it is allowed into American territory or waters to make sure that there is no plutonium or enriched uranium onboard that ship. We can do that scientifically.

But until then we will not be safe. We are just nibbling at the edges with everything we are doing.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and I are offering, which corrects an incredible injustice faced by some victims of the 9/ 11 attacks.

Shortly after the attack, which occurred in my district on September 11, Congress moved quickly to ease the economic suffering of businesses and residents in Lower Manhattan.

Over $3 billion was appropriated through the Community Development Block Grant program specifically to assist residents and businesses in Lower Manhattan through a variety of grant programs to try to recover from the tremendous economic damage inflicted by the terrorists.

While such programs could never make these individuals and businesses whole after the devastating losses they suffered, these funds are an important first step in, and my constituents are truly grateful to the country for coming to their aid.

Incredibly, the Internal Revenue Service has announced that much of this money is subject to Federal taxation, effectively withdrawing some of the aid after it has already been given.

When we appropriated these funds in this House, it was incomprehensible that the Federal Government might provide assistance with one hand and take it away with the other. These funds are not profit. They are not income that should be taxed. They are funds intended to begin to defray some of the damages incurred by these businesses which were closed for months because guards stood on Canal Street saying ``You cannot go to these businesses. You cannot pass here.''

The aid that these businesses are getting are a tiny fraction of the economic damage they suffered because of the terrorists. Twenty percent have already closed their doors. Twenty percent of the small businesses in Lower Manhattan have gone bankrupt because of the inadequacy of the aid that we gave them to make them whole from the terrorists, and now we are taking away some of the money that we gave them.

Recipients of these funds were never asked to prepare a budget with the prospect of paying taxes on it in mind. Already near financial ruin, to place further economic demand on their budgets is simply cruel. This is an issue of fairness and common sense and decency to the people who took the hit for this country. I do not believe that anybody on either side of the aisle who voted for the economic aid to try to help the victims of the terrorism anticipated this taxation, and we ought to get rid of it.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I do.

I would agree, obviously, with what the gentlewoman from New York, my coauthor of this amendment, just said. We have tried every different way.

The aid to small businesses is roughly about $539 million. This tax is taking it back about $268 million. I will concede that technically the point of order may stand, but the Committee on Rules of this House routinely waives all points of order; routinely waives most points of order. I would appeal to my colleague to withdraw his point of order. I appeal to my colleague to exercise discretion and not press his point of order so as not to victimize the victims a second time. Because that is what we are talking about here.

We have tried, the gentlewoman from New York and I and others in the New York delegation, to try to press this point to the Committee on Rules, in separate legislation, and to the IRS. I do not believe anybody anticipated that someone might come along and say this aid should be taxed. We would have put a sentence in the initial aid legislation 2 years ago, no one would have opposed it, and that would have been that.

No one anticipated this. This was completely shocking. No one anticipated the IRS would say that this money, which was a small recompense, with the average aid being about 10 to 15 percent of the loss, there is no profit or income here, it is 10 to 15 percent of the economic loss; but no one anticipated this would be taxed, so I urge that the point of order be withdrawn

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding physician, scholar, educator, humanitarian and citizen from the State of New York, James E. Cottrell, M.D. Dr. Cottrell will soon complete his term as national president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA). I am very proud and pleased that one of New York's own served as the 2002-2003 president of this prestigious national organization that is recognized world-wide for its outstanding work in improving patient safety.

Founded in 1905, ASA is the predominant professional organization that represents more than 36,000 anesthesiologists. Since its founding, ASA has been the leader in the development of patient safety standards and guidelines for the delivery of safe patient care before, during and after surgery. Efforts on the part of the organization and its members are recognized throughout the scientific and medical communities. The Institute of Medicine in its 1999 report on medical errors recognized the successes of organized anesthesiology's efforts to improve patient outcomes.

Anesthesiologists either directly administer or supervise 90 percent of all anesthetics performed throughout this country, in hospitals and outpatient surgical centers, and in urban and rural areas. In fact, anesthesiologists are the predominant provider of anesthetics in rural facilities. Besides the operating room, anesthesiologists are often found treating patients' pain and delivering critical medical care to patients in hospital intensive care units, emergency rooms and diagnostic facilities.

Dr. Cottrell received his medical degree from West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, and completed his anesthesiology residency at Mercy Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA.

As a recognized expert in the field of neuroanesthesia, he has lectured extensively worldwide, authored or co-authored more than 90 scientific papers, 114 scientific abstract presentations, 20 book chapters, was co-editor of three textbooks and has most recently authored a book that helps patients be better prepared for their surgery and anesthesia.

Dr. Cottrell currently serves on the Board of Directors of Doctors of the World and has served on the Board of Directors of God's Love We Deliver, an organization dedicated to serving and delivering meals to AIDS patients in New York City.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing James E. Cottrell, M.D., for his notable career, outstanding achievements, humanitarian work and dedication to patient safety.

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 they are hospitalized.

In cooperation with Bally Fitness Centers and under the direction of its President Rabbi

Yaacov Kaploun and Executive Vice President Yehuda Kaploun, the Foundation has been able to establish 27 physical fitness and therapy centers and has arranged for sound and musical equipment in other institutions.

In conjunction with Downtown Film Productions, The Moses and Aaron Foundation produced ``Chazak--A Testament of Strength,'' an award winning documentary highlighting the effect of music on special children. This monumental documentary serves as a vehicle to sensitize and educate the entire community on the needs of its special and outstanding citizens.

On Saturday night, August 9th, 2003, at the Monticello Raceway in Monticello, New York, the Moses and Aaron Foundation under the Honorary Chairmanship of Nobel Laureate Eli Weisel, will sponsor its seventh Summer ``Chazak--Strength'' concert paying tribute to special children. The guests of honor will be the special and outstanding children, some of whom will perform with the entertainers on stage.

The corporate and individual sponsors of the Moses and Aaron Foundation include Metropolitan Lumber, Bally Total Fitness, Cohen's & General Vision Services, CD Inc, Mr. David Buntzman, Mr. Jonathan Fleisig, 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. Charles Rosenay, Mr. Eli Rothman, Mr. Mark Selden, and Mr. and Mrs. Neil Cohen. I recognize Mr. and Mrs. Clifford Stowe and Mr. and Mrs. Jules Cohen for their support for the Foundation, improving the quality of life of special children.

I also recognize the support given to the Moses and Aaron Foundation by Steve and Shirley Slesinger, who have brought a literary treasure into millions of young American hearts by bringing Winnie the Pooh and other characters to the screen and printed world, with particular credit to Shirley Slesinger Lasswell and Patti Slesinger for bringing to life one of the most adored bears in history.

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. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

This amendment would increase the appropriation for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program, known as HOPWA, by $5 million. It is a far cry from what is truly needed, but it represents an important first step towards full funding.

I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for cosponsoring the amendment, and I would like to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for cosponsoring the amendment and for demonstrating bipartisan support for this amendment and for this program.

I have a lengthy statement, but since the distinguished chairman has indicated he is prepared to accept the amendment, I will say nothing further other than to thank him.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase the appropriation for the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS, or HOPWA, progam by $5 million. This is a far cry from what is truly needed, but it represents an important first step toward full funding.

I would like to thank Mr. Shays and Mr. Crowley for joining me on this amendment and for demonstrating the bipartisan support for HOPWA.

Mr. Chairman, at any given time, one-third to one-half of all Americans living with AIDS are either homeless or in imminent danger of losing their homes. Without assistance, they face almost certain death on the streets.

This is where HOPWA comes in. Through a variety of services, HOPWA helps thousands of people each year put a roof over their heads and create a stable living environment for themselves.

But HOPWA is not just about being compassionate, it's also good public policy. Having stable, decent housing is the key to maintaining strict treatment regimens which have allowed thousands of people with AIDS to resume normal, productive lives.

HOPWA is a locally controlled program that provides communities with the flexibility to address local housing needs. It also supplies a low- cost alternative to acute-care hospital beds, typically paid for by Medicaid, which are often the only available shelter for people living with AIDS. In fact, while an acute-care facility costs Medicaid, on average more than $1,000 a day assistance under HOPWA costs just $55 to $110 a day.

In Fiscal Year 2002 alone, HOPWA funds served over 60,000 people in 74 cities and 34 states across the nation. This is a well-run, far- reaching and successful program.

When I meet with members of the AIDS community, there is one need that is stressed about all others, and that is housing. Finding affordable housing can be extremely difficult for anyone. Throw in the added complications of living with AIDS--paying for expensive medication, the difficulty in holding a steady job, and perhaps facing discrimination--and it becomes nearly impossible. That's why HOPWA fills such a critical void.

But without sufficient funding, thousands of people will continue to be unable to access these critical services. In San Francisco alone, over 4,700 people are now on waiting lists for HOPWA-funded housing. We must do all we can to reduce this backlog.

The housing crisis facing people living with HIV/AIDS exacts an enormous toll on individuals, their families, and communities across the country. HOPWA dollars help lessen this toll. Without proper funding for HOPWA, people with HIV and AIDS will continue to die prematurely in hospital rooms, shelters, and on the streets of our cities. This amendment is a small step toward what is truly necessary, but even this modest increase will mean the difference between life and death for thousands of people. I urge the adoption of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will upset the normal order of things by first yielding 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase funding for section 8 housing vouchers by $150 million to help low-income families afford safe, decent housing. To offset this increase, the amendment cuts the working capital fund from the management and administration accounts by an equal amount.

The need for housing assistance is staggering. As of January 1, the New York City Housing Authority had 142,000 applicants on its waiting list for section 8. And it gets worse. The section 8 waiting list has been closed to new applicants since December 1994, and there is still 142,000 people waiting, just in New York City. In 1999, a HUD study concluded there were nearly 5 million low-income families who paid more than 50 percent of their income for rent or lived in severely substandard housing.

In the last several years, housing prices have continued to skyrocket, and with the stagnant economy and rising unemployment rates the problem is probably even worse and more severe today. We must not ignore the desperate situation facing these families any longer.

I challenge anyone to argue that tenant-based section 8 vouchers do not achieve their goals. More than 2 million American families benefit from section 8 vouchers. For these families, section 8 is a lifeline and enables them to live in decent housing.

Mr. Chairman, why are we planning to undermine the program in this bill by not expanding it?

The fact is, as recently as a few years ago, in fiscal year 2001, we increased the number of vouchers by 79,000. In fiscal year 2002, we increased it by 18,000. Last year we increased it by zero. This budget proposes to increase it by zero.

The amount of money I am proposing to put into this bill will increase a mere 23,000 new vouchers. Waiting lists are in the millions. We can afford the offset. We have already appropriated over $1 billion in the last couple of years to upgrade the computer system. We are proposing $330 million more this year. We are saying, take about half of that, less than half of that, and provide services for people. If it takes HUD a little longer to upgrade its computer system, they will live with that, so 23,000 people will have decent housing.

Mr. Chairman, that is a fair trade, and that is why I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

July 25, 2003.

To: Members of the House of Representatives.

Re funding for the Housing Choice (``Section 8'') Voucher

Program.

As members of the faith community, we are writing to

express our concern about funding for the Section 8 housing

voucher program. Our organizations serve millions of low-

income individuals and families who, despite their best

efforts, are struggling to meet their basic needs and to

achieve economic stability. To many of those we assist, the

lack of affordable housing presents a considerable obstacle,

and the Section 8 voucher program offers in turn a critical

form of assistance. Through our work, we are witness to the

important role that housing vouchers play in preventing

homelessness, and in helping low-income individuals and

families to make progress towards economic stability.

Congress has for many years expressed a strong commitment

to the Section 8 voucher program, consistently voting to

increase the number of vouchers authorized and to fully fund

all authorized vouchers. This commitment has been important,

as the need for housing assistance has continued to expand.

In most communities, there are long waiting lists for Section

8 vouchers, and it is estimated that only one third of

eligible households receive voucher assistance.

To our disappointment, however, Congress appears to be

retreating from this commitment. In the appropriations law

for 2003, Congress failed, for the first time in recent

memory, to include funding for incremental Section 8

vouchers. This week, the House Appropriations Committee

reported out a VA-HUD appropriations bill for 2004 that

would, by its own estimate, fund only 96 percent of

authorized Section 8 vouchers, and again includes on funding

for incremental vouchers.

Moreover, while we appreciate that the House Appropriations

Committee has made a sincere effort to improve on the

President's budget request for the voucher program, and we

recognize that estimating future voucher costs is difficult,

there is reason to believe that the Committee's estimate is

overly optimistic. Recent analyses performed independently by

the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and

Policy Priorities (CBPP) suggest that the Committee's

estimate is based on voucher cost assumptions that are too

low. For example, in an analysis of the most recent voucher

cost data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development, CBPP estimates that the Section 8 appropriation

in the House bill would be sufficient to renew only 91

percent of authorized vouchers, and is approximately $580

million short of the funding that will be necessary to fully

renew vouchers leased in 2004. A shortfall of this magnitude

would have a destructive impact on thousands of vulnerable

households--85,000 households, by CBPP's estimate--the great

majority of which are working families, elderly, or disabled.

We therefore urge you to renew Congress's commitment to

fully fund the Section 8 voucher program. Specifically, we

ask that you increase the Section 8 appropriation

sufficiently to ensure that all authorized vouchers will be

funded, and to make certain that no households using vouchers

in the coming year will be denied funding.

As faith-based organizations, we are committed to

strengthening our communities by assisting those who are the

most vulnerable, and we believe that our work is not simply a

matter of charity, but of responsibility, righteousness, and

justice. We urge you to assist us in our work by renewing

Congress's commitment to fully fund and expand the Section 8

voucher program.

Sincerely,

American Baptist Churches USA.

Call to Renewal.

Catholic Charities USA.

The Episcopal Church, USA.

McAuley Institute.

NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Washington Office.

United Jewish Communities.

Volunteers of America.

Mr. Chairman, I am offering, with Congresswoman Velazquez, this amendment to increase funding for Section 8 vouchers by $150 million to help low-income families afford safe, decent housing. To offset this increase, we propose to cut the working capital fund from the management and administration account by the same amount.

The need for housing assistance is staggering. As of January 1, 2003, the New York City Housing Authority had 141,837 applicants on its Section 8 waiting list. And it gets worse. The Section 8 waiting list has been closed to new applicants since December 1994. That is just in New York City.

In 1999, a HUD study concluded that there were nearly 5 million low- income families who paid more than 50 percent of their income for rent or who lived in severely substandard housing. In the last several years housing prices have continued to skyrocket, and with the stagnant Bush economy and rising unemployment rates the problem is probably even more severe today. We must not ignore the desperate situation facing many families or the severity of their needs any longer.

I challenge anyone to argue that tenant-based Section 8 vouchers do not achieve their goals. More than 2 million American families benefit from Section 8 vouchers. For these families, Section 8 is more than a contract or a subsidy; it is often the foundation upon which they can build lifelong economic self-sufficiency. Section 8 allows families to enter the private housing market and choose where they want to live, helping them to escape from the cycle of poverty and creating better income mixes throughout our communities. Thanks to Section 8, families are able to afford decent, safe housing. Nothing extravagant and, frankly, sometimes not very nice at all, but much better than the alternative.

Research supports the benefits of Section 8 housing. Section 8 children are much less likely to be involved in violent crime, and they are more likely to stay in school and improve their educational performance. Section 8 families are more than twice as likely to leave welfare, and have success moving into the workforce. Based on these and other findings, the bipartisan, congressionally-chartered Millennial Housing Commission strongly endorsed the voucher program in its May 2002 report, describing the program as ``flexible, cost-effective, and successful in its mission.''

So why are we planning to undermine the program in this bill?

The bill, in its current form, does a terrible disservice to those most in need. Unlike the previous administration which in the year 2000 requested 120,000 incremental Section 8 vouchers, the Bush Administration would prefer to block grant the program and cut its funding. Thankfully, not even the Republicans agreed to such a radical proposal. However, this bill would contribute to the growing backlog of families who can't afford decent, safe and sanitary housing.

I want to quote from a letter from religious organizations throughout the country who write that ``Recent analyses performed independently by the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) suggest that the Committee's estimate is based on voucher cost assumptions that are too low. . . . CBPP estimates that the Section appropriation . . . is approximately $580 million short of the funding that will be needed to fully renew vouchers leased in 2004.'' That means that 85,000 households will be affected.

Our amendment will allow about 23,500 more families to live in safe, affordable, decent housing. It is not asking for much. We can and should do more. But today, we only ask for a very modest amount.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke eloquently in 1944 of the fact hat, and I quote: ``True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not freemen.'' FDR was right--every family deserves a decent home.

President Roosevelt's commitment to provide decent, safe, affordable housing to those who could not afford the rents in the private market continued through both Democratic and Republican administrations. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush all--to some degree--continued that commitment. And yet today, this bill does not properly fund Section 8 housing vouchers. Families in need will suffer under this bill if we cannot amend it.

We must house our people. Let's continue the legacy of this great nation. Please vote yes on the Nadler-Velazquez amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

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

Mr. Chairman, first, let me note and thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for coauthoring this amendment with me. She could not be here on the floor right now, but it is her amendment as well as mine, and I want to express my appreciation to her in public for all the work that she has done on this amendment.

Second, the distinguished chairman said that an outside interest group estimated the costs of the vouchers. The fact of the matter is, and I quote from a letter from some church groups, religious organizations throughout the country who wrote, ``Recent analyses performed independently by the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities suggest the committee's estimate is based on voucher cost assumptions that are too low'' because, in fact, they are a couple of years out of date. ``CBPP estimates that the Section 8 appropriation is approximately $580 million short of the funding that will be needed to fully renew vouchers leased in 2004.''

That means that about 85,000 vouchers will not be paid for, assuming the Congressional Budget Office and the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities are more correct than those of the Department, for which I would rather give them the benefit of the doubt than I would the Department.

This amendment would restore funding for 23,500. Frankly, it is simply unacceptable in a time of rampant homelessness, in a time when in New York City, and I use this as an example because conditions are bad in many places, the waiting list for public housing was closed in 1994 and the waiting list is almost 200,000 since then. You cannot get on the waiting list in the last 9 years.

People are desperate for housing. It is unacceptable to have a budget that purports to increase the number of Section 8 vouchers by zero, and that may very well, if in fact the CBO and the CBPP were correct in saying that HUD estimates of costs are wrong, may very well cut it by 85,000. That is just not acceptable.

So I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment. Yes, it will present some difficulties perhaps with computerization. HUD can survive that. But this will enable 23,500 additional households to have decent housing, maybe 23,500 additional kids to be able to learn in school instead of not being able to learn in school because they have no place to do their homework

and no decent place to literally hang their hats.

This is a modest, minimal amendment. It is minimal decency. We should be doing it 10 times larger, but given the constraints of the budget, the constraints of the tax cut, this is the least we can do.

I am sorry, by the way, if it were not for the constraints of the tax cuts and the budget that were forced on this side of the aisle by the other side of the aisle, we would not have to take $150 million away from this computerization program. We would not have to have that offset. We could simply say, in decency, let us help provide more people with decent housing.

But we must do this offset. The offset may not be the best thing, but it is a heck of a lot better than 23,500 families not having decent housing.

So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.