Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I thank the chairman and ranking member for including in this en bloc amendment, which I support, my amendment which I will address now.

Mr. Chairman, the greatest danger this country faces is that al Qaeda or some other terrorist group will get nuclear weapons. The greatest danger of that happening is that they will get weapons grade material from the former Soviet Union, which has enough weapons grade plutonium and uranium to manufacture 40,000 nuclear weapons lying around, not guarded properly and subject to theft or sale on the black market.

What we ought to do is buy all this material from the Russians from between 25 to $30 billion so we can take possession of it and protect it from theft or sale.

My amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a study to Congress examining the costs and benefits of purchasing all the ex- Soviet Union's weapons grade plutonium and uranium in fiscal year 2005 and safeguarding it from smuggling or theft until it can be rendered unusable for weapons.

I am glad that this study of doing what I regard as essential to protect this country from the possibility of al Qaeda having a nuclear weapon with which to attack us is included in this amendment and I, therefore, support it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this legislation which will enshrine the principle of religious discrimination in our laws. I can recall no greater betrayal of our Nation's family principles in my 10 years in Congress.

Supporters of this bill have held up the nonexistent problem that religious organizations allegedly cannot participate in federally funded programs. That is not true. Religious organizations have every right to participate in publicly funded programs and they have done so for many years.

This bill is also not about protecting religious freedom. Current law protects the right of institutions to select their own clergy and practice their religions free from government interference. No one is questioning that, and this bill has nothing to do with it. The question is whether you can discriminate in taxpayer-funded, nonreligious employment. Current law says you cannot. This bill says you can.

This is not equality, and it is certainly not compassion. It is simply wrong to tell those taxpayers that programs they fund can be closed to them simply because of their religious faith.

Mr. Chairman, the people I represent understand religious discrimination. Many of them came to this country because Jews or Catholics faced the evils of religious bigotry in Europe. They should not have to face it here.

This bill is also a slander against religious people across this Nation. They do not want to engage in employment discrimination; they want to help people. They are guided by their faith to make the world a better place.

Not only does this bill bring shame on our Nation and its tradition of religious tolerance, the Republican leadership has decreed that we cannot even vote on this momentous question of repealing the law against religious discrimination. They have abused their power by forbidding a discussion and a vote on this fundamental question.

What are they afraid of? Are they afraid that some of their Members might have to answer to their neighbors for casting a vote in favor of religious discrimination with taxpayers' money? I cannot blame them from hiding behind the Iron Curtain of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard all of this before from the Republican leadership. In the Committee on the Judiciary, we were told that people should be able to discriminate against janitors and the people who serve soup to the poor simply on the basis of religion. The President has made the right to discriminate on the basis of religion the heart of his so-called ``compassionate conservatism.''

Mr. Chairman, that is not what America is about. It is not the spirit of religious charity, it is not the spirit of religious liberty. I cannot imagine voting yes on a bill to say that for the first time since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 we are going to repeal a bill, a law against religious liberty, a law that Ronald Reagan signed, a law that said you cannot discriminate with Federal taxpayer funds on the basis of religion. This bill says you can. For shame, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this legislation which will enshrine the principle of religious discrimination in our laws. I can recall no greater betrayal of our nation's founding principles in my 10 years in Congress.

Proponents of this bill have held up the non-existent problem that religious organizations cannot participate in federally funded programs that is not true. Religious organizations have every right to participate in publicly funded programs, and they have done so for many years. I have helped many of these religiously affiliated charities obtain Federal and State funding to do their good work as have most other members of this House.

This bill is also about protecting religious freedom. Current law protects the right of religious institutions to select their own clergy and practice their religions free from governmental interference. No one is questioning that, and this bill has nothing to do with it. The question is whether you can discriminate in taxpayer funded non- religious employment. Current law says you can't. This bill says you can.

This is not equality, and it is certainly not compassion. All Americans pay their taxes and, therefore, pay for these programs. It is simply wrong to tell those taxpayers that programs they fund can be closed to them simply beause of their religious faith.

Mr. Chairman, the people I represent understand religious discrimination. Many of them came to this country because Jews or Catholics faced the evils of religious bigotry in Europe. They should not have to face it here.

This bill is also a slander against religious people across this nation. They do not want to engage in employment discrimination; they want to help people. They are guided by their faith to make the world a better place.

Not only does this bill bring shame on our nation and its tradition of religious tolerance, the Republican leadership has decreed that we cannot even vote on the momentous question of repealing the law against religious discrimination. They have abused their power by forbidding a discussion and a vote on this fundamental question.

What are they afraid of? Are they afraid that some of their members might have to answer to their neighbors for casting a vote in favor of religious discrimination? I can't blame them for hiding behind the Iron Curtain of the Rules Committee. I wouldn't want to have to answer for that either.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard this all before from the Republican Leadership. In the Judiciary Committee we were told that people should be able to discriminate against janitors and the people who serve soup to the poor simply on the basis of religion. The President has made the right to discriminate over the heart of his ``compassionate conservative''.

Mr. Chairman, that's not what America is about. This is certainly not the spirit of religious charity. I urge a no vote on this bill so we can come back and do it right.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1298. This is an excellent bill that will save millions of lives throughout the world. It's an outstanding example of the kind of leadership the United States should be showing on public health issues, and I hope it's just the beginning of our work in this area.

I'm particularly pleased that President Bush has stood up to the extremists in his party who wished to hijack this bill to push their ideological agenda. The radical right wing forces who oppose even the discussion as well as distribution of condoms as part of a balanced approach play a dangerous game with people's lives. Instead of allowing proven strategies to work, there are some who would rather watch a whole continent die than see condoms used. An abstinence-only approach is a death sentence for millions of people.

As I said, however, I applaud President Bush for standing up to these extremists and supporting this balanced bill. When the Traditional Values Coalition and the Family Research Council are opposed to legislation, we must be doing something right.

Mr. Chairman, for too long this nation has stood by and paid closer attention to our wallet than to the millions of people dying of AIDS throughout the world. Up until now, we've been unwilling to spend the money necessary to combat this terrible disease. But today, we are hopefully reversing this trend and beginning a new era of American leadership on this issue.

We've seen incredible devastation throughout the world as a result of AIDS. Millions of children will grow up orphans and entire nations have been unable sustain a healthy workforce, driving them even deeper into poverty. These are tragedies that we can help stop, but it takes money and political will. With this bill today, we take an important step in that direction.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to oppose any amendments that weaken it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would add to the Highly Enriched Uranium Divergent Study Threat Report, already required by the bill, a new section mandating that the study examine the options of weapons accelerating the purchase of excess weapons grade plutonium and uranium from Russia to reduce the likelihood that such plutonium and uranium could be stolen or sold to terrorists.

The report already requires that seven items be considered by the Secretary, and this amendment would add an eighth item.

Mr. Chairman, the greatest threat the United States faces is that a terrorist group like al Qaeda may obtain nuclear weapons. Even a small nuclear bomb exploded in the United States would kill hundreds of thousands of people and cause more than $1 trillion in economic damage. The threat of nuclear proliferation is at the heart of our confrontations with Iraq and North Korea, yet we are not adequately addressing the most likely source of this threat.

It is relatively easy to make atomic bombs if you have weapons-grade material. Enough excess weapons-grade plutonium and uranium to build 20,000 nuclear bombs is stored in the former Soviet Union, in facilities of doubtful security, guarded by low-paid personnel who may be tempted by black-market cash. The possibility of al Qaeda or another such terrorist group buying or stealing enough for a few nuclear devices is disturbingly high.

The United States has agreed to buy or help convert the Russian nuclear materials into a nonthreatening form, but this will take decades, up to 30 years, in fact.

Now, I had originally wanted to offer an amendment that would add $30 billion in funding to enable us to quickly purchase and secure all of the excess Russian plutonium and highly enriched uranium. That amendment was based on the recommendations of a report issued in January of 2001 by a commission headed by Howard Baker, Lloyd Cutler, Gary Hart, Sam Nunn, Susan Eisenhower, and Robert Hanfling. Their report, entitled ``A Report Card on the Department of Energy's Nonproliferation Programs With Russia,'' should have served as a wake- up call to the Nation. Unfortunately, we are still asleep when it comes to this issue.

That report writes, ``The most urgent unmet national security threat to the United States today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons of usable material in Russia could be stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nations and used against American troops abroad or citizens at home. This threat is a clear and present danger to the international community as well as to American lives and liberties.''

I agree. Unfortunately, my amendment, based on their recommendations, was not made in order. But this amendment, simply to study the pros and cons of accelerating the purchase of this dangerous nuclear material, may result in our taking real action a year or two from now.

We need to increase substantially the funding to purchase excess Russian plutonium so that we can immobilize it; to purchase the highly enriched Russian uranium in order to downblend it; and to make a series of improvements to the security of nuclear material while it is still in Russia, including training of operators and managers, computerizing inventory systems, and making upgrades to security during transport. At the very least, it is time for the Secretary of Energy to consider carefully proposals that would accelerate the purchase of this excess weapons-grade plutonium and uranium. Whatever it would cost would be a small price to pay to keep al Qaeda from obtaining nuclear bombs.

I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the support of the distinguished chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes, which I will not use.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his support. I thank the distinguished chairman for his support.

Mr. Chairman, knowing that I am ahead, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will not take all of my time.

Mr. Chairman, Islamic terrorist groups served loud notice on 9/11 that they intend to kill as many Americans as possible. Yet the administration and this Congress is ignoring the most likely modes of attack. We are spending upwards of $100 billion on an antiballistic missile system supposedly to protect ourselves against a rogue nation like Iraq or Iran or North Korea that might want to launch two or three nuclear armed missiles at us. Yet such a nation would be unlikely to use missiles to attack us if they wanted to, because missiles have return addresses, and the leaders know that American retaliation would obliterate their country a half an hour later.

Rogue nations and terrorists that want to attack the United States with atomic weapons would more likely put those weapons on ships, sail the ships into American ports and detonate the atomic bombs. Not knowing against whom to retaliate, the United States would be helpless.

Every year 12 million shipping containers enter the United States. We inspect fewer than 2 percent of them. This amendment provides $15 billion for two purposes:

First, so that we can insist that no container in a foreign port is loaded on a ship bound to the United States until that container is searched, sealed and certified by American inspectors. If a country refuses access, it should be prohibited from shipping anything to the United States.

Second, the amendment provides funds to enable the Coast Guard to board and search every single ship before they get within 200 miles of American shores, and we must inspect at the border all cargo unloaded from ships in other North American ports. Only by inspecting every container before it is loaded onto a ship in a foreign port and by searching every ship before it gets close enough to our shores can we be reasonably assured that atomic bombs will not obliterate American cities.

Some will object that this will hinder commerce. But one atomic bomb would halt commerce instantly. Every port would be closed tight until these procedures could be put, too late, into place.

This would cost money, about $15 billion a year, but we can afford it. Unfortunately, the administration and Republicans in Congress prefer to squander hundreds of billions of dollars for tax cuts on the wealthy instead of protecting the lives of our people. We have to realize we are in a serious war that may last decades and we must start thinking and acting seriously.

In wartime the government must spend the money to defend the lives of its people or it violates the fundamental social contract. President Bush and Congress must honor that contract or forfeit the trust of the Nation.

So I ask that this amendment be allowed to be considered. I urge the Congress to meet its obligation and to fully fund the security measures to inspect every container and search every ship that is contained in this amendment.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Susan Herrmann, Kealy Salomon, Perry Colwell, Caroline Hoen, Carol Massey, Freddie Hodges, Kay Scott, Jamie Ann Sabino and Nancy Williams, who have all served ably as leaders of Planned Parenthood Eastern Region.

As members of the Eastern Region Executive Committee, they have volunteered innumerable hours, their energy and passion toward engaging the volunteers and affiliate staff of the Eastern Region with Planned Parenthood's mission. Planned Parenthood's regional councils represent a critical component of Planned Parenthood's political grassroots in the battle to protect and expand Planned Parenthood's mission.

With Planned Parenthood facing it's most difficult hour, withstanding constant attacks from the Radical Right, the Eastern Region Council will play a critical role in support and inspiring the staff and volunteers of the Region.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Planned Parenthood Federation, I extend my deep appreciation and admiration to Judy Tabb, Susan Herrmann, Kealy Salomon, Perry Colwell, Caroline Hoen, Carol Massey, Freddie Hodges, Kay Scott, Jamie Ann Sabino and Nancy Williams for their leadership in protecting the reproductive rights of all.

Mr. Speaker, it is my very great personal pleasure to rise today to pay tribute to Robert M. Morgenthau, New York County's District Attorney and Chairman of the Museum of Jewish Heritage--A Living Memorial to the Holocaust. Mr. Morgenthau is being honored at the Museum's Heritage Dinner, and I would like to honor him myself, today.

Mr. Morgenthau, as an elected official, an advocate, and a selfless leader, epitomizes the very best of public service. He served his country as a naval reservist and then as a distinguished naval officer during World War II, achieving the rank of Lt. Commander. He was asked to serve the Nation once again as a U.S. Attorney, appointed by President John F. Kennedy in 1961. We are most fortunate that his pursuit of justice brought him to watch over our great borough of Manhattan, where he has been the District Attorney of New York County since 1974 and has won re-election eight times.

His wisdom, his energy, and his leadership have made New York a better city. His tireless devotion to the law resulted in his establishing units that oversee the prosecution of crimes against society's most vulnerable victims, and he has pursued major cases that affect the economic and social viability of New York City.

Since 1982, Mr. Morgenthau has lent his talent and vision to the Museum of Jewish Heritage--A Living Memorial to the Holocaust. With the memory of those who were murdered in the Holocaust always in his thoughts, he has seen the Museum through two construction projects and helped raise millions of dollars to ensure its future. Because of Mr. Morgenthau's leadership, the Museum, which is located five blocks south of the World Trade Center site, began building its new wing on November 27, 2001, mere months after the worst terrorist attacks this nation has ever witnessed. Located across New York Harbor from the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, the new wing will incorporate centers for memory, learning, performance, and exhibitions. It will also incorporate the strength and humanity of a man who has steered the Museum through both rough seas and calm waters. Mr. Morgenthau's tireless determination, infinite supply of good counsel, and unconditional devotion are as fundamental to the Museum's existence as the foundation on which it stands. The new wing, which is just about complete, will be named for Robert M. Morgenthau on April 6, 2003.

It gives me great pleasure to honor Robert M. Morgenthau, on behalf of the people of New York City. I thank him for ensuring justice for all.

Mr. Speaker, last October I thought that it was absolutely necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein. I still think so, but I thought then and I think now that Saddam could have been disarmed without resort to war. So I voted against the resolution giving the President complete authority to use military force at his sole discretion.

Now our country is at war and our young people in harm's way. I unequivocally support our troops in their valiant role, and I, therefore, support this resolution.

This resolution expresses support for our troops and for their families and for the President's leadership ``in the conduct of military operations in Iraq,'' and only for his conduct of those military operations. It does not, as some have said, express support for the President's decision to resort to war or for the administration's diplomacy that has led us to war.

Our troops and their families deserve our support, and I will express my support for them by voting for this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I rise in opposition because it is wrong in its principles, it is wrong on the stated findings, it is wrong on its facts. Let me just go through them.

First of all, people may very well, everybody has the freedom to disagree with a court decision. All of us have the right to get up and say that. I do not think it is the role of Congress to say that a court decision is wrong. If we disagree as a body with a court decision, then pass a law if it is a question of statutory interpretation, or propose a constitutional amendment if it is a question of constitutional interpretation. That is our role.

The role of the judiciary is, to quote Chief Justice Marshall, to say what the law is. They say what the law is, and we say what the law should be. It is not our role to tell the court it is wrong; it is our role to change the law if we think so. To pass a resolution which has no power except perhaps the power to intimidate judges is wrong and a violation of our constitutional role.

Secondly, this states as fact that recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, including the phrase ``one Nation under God,'' is a patriotic act, not an act or statement of religious faith or belief. It certainly is a patriotic act, but it certainly is a statement of religious faith and belief when you say ``one Nation under God.''

The only way you can get around that conclusion is to say, as the dissenting opinion in the court said, that the phrase ``under God'' is minor, it is de minimis, it does not mean anything. But that is a sacrilege. Since when is God minor? Are we really going to say in this Chamber that God is minor; that belief in God is a minor question, so minor as to not to be worthy of notice?

That is the only ground on which we could say that asking schoolchildren, in the context of a group recitation of a pledge in a classroom, is not a prayer and an affirmation of belief and a religious conviction. To say that God is minor and ``under God'' means nothing, I do not think we want to say that. I certainly hope we do not want to say that. Yet, if we say it means something, then the Pledge of Allegiance with that phrase in it is a statement of a religious belief, or at least a statement of a belief in God.

There are religions in this country, Shintoism, Hinduism, that do not believe in one God. There are people who are atheists. It is factually a wrong statement. It says, as a statement of fact, that the court's ruling in this case is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment. That is demonstrably wrong, and the Supreme Court will say so.

First, the Supreme Court for the last 40 years in its jurisprudence on school prayers has said that we cannot ask schoolchildren to recite a prayer or a belief in God in the classroom setting, even if we allow the dissenters to walk out of the room; but that is exactly what asking them to say the Pledge of Allegiance with that phrase ``under God'' is. It is exactly consistent with the Supreme Court's last 40 years of jurisprudence and rulings on the school prayer cases. It is, in effect, the school prayer, that as long as you ask schoolchildren to say ``one Nation under God.'' It has all the same pros and cons; and many disagree with the Supreme Court's decisions, but those were its decisions.

In the name of religious liberty, in the name of the separation of powers, in the name of religion, to say that God is not minor, we ought not to pass this resolution and let the Supreme Court uphold or overturn the Court of Appeals decision in Newdow. After that we can worry about a constitutional amendment, which I would propose, and some Members may want to propose. But at this point it is not our function to be correcting a court.

Mr. Chairman, although we have been considering bankruptcy legislation since the end of 1997, this bill has gone through many incarnations, but some things have not changed.

Number 1, there is no bankruptcy crisis. The number of bankruptcy filings have gone way up, but not because, as the proponents of this legislation pretend, mores of changes, no social stigma. The rise in bankruptcy tracks directly, year to year, with the rise in the ratio of debt in society to income.

As the credit card companies have churned out more and more credit and have given it to people who are less and less creditworthy, and people have taken on more and more credit, there are more bankruptcies. People cannot pay their debts. Surprise. In fact, in 1983, before the so-called crisis started, the average debt-to-income ratio of a Chapter 7 filer was .74. In other words, a person filed bankruptcy, the average Chapter 7 filer owed 74 percent of his annual income in debt.

Today, the average Chapter 7 filer owes 125 percent of his annual income in debt. People are more reluctant to file for bankruptcy than they were 20 years ago, not less reluctant, but they are doing it because there is more and more debt, because we have not properly regulated the credit card companies, which are issuing more and more debt not because they are losing money on it, but because they are making money hand over fist. It is the biggest profit center they have, and they have the nerve to come to us and say we should bail them out of their profligacy because they are losing a small percentage of the tons of money they are making, a small percentage of it is slipping through their fingers because of the increase in bankruptcies that they have produced and knowingly produced.

In the last 5 years, many things have happened. The economy has worsened. Whatever the reasons, that is a fact. People are hurting, and more than that, businesses are hurting. This bill will make it much harder for businesses to rescue a going concern. It will make it much harder for a Chapter 11 business to reorganize, much more likely it will be liquidated, and thus it will hurt communities, employees, trade creditors and other businesses.

Making a discharge in bankruptcy more elusive will make it harder for consumers to get a fresh start and continue to make consumer purchases, which is one of the mainstreams of our economy. Household debt has reached record levels. With that come more bankruptcies, but no serious economist would argue that a precipitous drop in consumer spending would help our economy.

Bankruptcy is a trade-off. The safety net encourages risk-taking in business, allows distressed families to remain in the economy, and maintains demand for products businesses must fill to survive. Bankruptcy does not cause default any more than a hospital causes people to be sick.

We have been told that bankruptcy is a free ride. The facts are that it is not a walk in the park. A debtor in Chapter 7 must give up all his nonexempt assets in order to obtain a discharge. Secured debts must be paid, or the property is subject to foreclosure. The bankruptcy remains on the debtor's record for 10 years, and the debtor may not refile for 6 years under current law and 8 under the bill, which is 1 more year than is found in Deuteronomy. Apparently the banks who wrote this bill believe they know better than God on this one.

It can be harder to get a job, an apartment or a loan. As a majority witness who had been indebted told the Committee on the Judiciary a few years ago, had she known the consequences of filing, she might not have done so.

No one believes that people should avoid paying their debts if they can afford to do so. The question, rather, is does this bill make sense. Members should ask themselves why the overwhelming majority of bankruptcy professionals, scholars, trustees, creditor lawyers, corporation lawyers and judges are appalled that Congress is even contemplating this bill.

There is a terrible disconnect between people who actually have to make a system function regardless of their role, whether for creditors or debtors or interests who oppose this bill, and here in Congress, the demands of special interests who have a stake in some provision of this bill are generally viewed as a great idea that requires no further consideration.

Over the years we have heard from, among others, Ken Klee, one of the leading bankruptcy scholars and business bankruptcy lawyers in the country, and the former Republican bankruptcy counsel to the Committee on the Judiciary. He has drafted Supreme Court briefs signed by Members of this House. Ralph Maybe, one of the most respected business bankruptcy lawyers in the country, also testified against the bill.

The late Lawrence King of New York University and editor in chief of the authoritative Colliers on Bankruptcy has testified against this bill. Bob Walschmitt, on behalf of the National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees, and Hank Hildebrandt, on behalf of the National Association of Chapter 13 Trustees, have strongly criticized this bill in testimony, notwithstanding the fact that their organizations do not take formal positions on bills.

We have heard from consumer rights organizations, just about every women's group in the country, child advocacy groups, labor unions, civil rights groups and every national bankruptcy organization in the country that this bill will hurt consumers, families, children, yes, children, employees, minorities and the economy. It will raise costs to the system and disrupt the efficient management of bankruptcy proceedings.

Mr. Chairman, despite the votes in this House, opposition to this bill is hardly marginal. In fact, outside the Beltway opposition is mainstream among the Nation's experts. We have had many hearings over the years, but the considered opinion of people in the position to understand this technical subject matter has been ignored.

Mr. Chairman, I know the leadership is intent on moving this bill. I know it is a priority of the President. We have a responsibility to the country to be deliberative, to take a careful look and to get it right, no matter what the politics.

Many of my colleagues have voted for this bill in the past, but times have changed. The economy has changed. Do not ignore reality. Do not ignore what is going on outside the Beltway. Let us take a fresh look at the facts. Even Members of Congress, Mr. Chairman, are entitled to a fresh start.

Mr. Chairman, as I think is known, I disagree on just about every other aspect of this bill, including whether it is desirable at all, with the distinguished chairman, but on this amendment I have to join him in opposition.

There is no good reason to go away in bankruptcy from the normal venue laws, number one, and make bankruptcy an exception to the venue laws in general.

Two, the debtor now can choose several different places; the principal place of incorporation where he has the principal place of business, et cetera.

Three, he can always ask the court to change it.

Four, courts are not businesses. They are not looking for business. They are not looking for volume. In fact, courts in Delaware are sending cases elsewhere because they are overcrowded.

Mr. Chairman, there is no good reason and a lot of harm that will come from adopting this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am offering this substitute amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to make the bill a truly balanced reform measure by promoting responsibility for both debtors and lenders alike.

Unfortunately, the bill being brought to the floor today is little more than a package of special interest amendments that will distort the bankruptcy system, hurting the most financially desperate families, shut down distressed businesses and do nothing to stop predatory lending or collection practices.

The substitute will make a number of changes to the bill to ensure responsibility, without encouraging abuse of the system by debtors or by creditors.

The substitute replaces the one-size-fits-all means test with a clear standard that takes into account the debtor's real income and real expenses. That is not what the bill does now. The bill before us would calculate a family's ability to repay its debts by looking at income they no longer have and costs of living that some IRS bureaucrat thinks their expenses should be, rather than what their expenses really are.

Since when did the IRS bill collectors become the gold standard for accountability and fairness? This Congress ordered the IRS as part of IRS reform a few years ago to exercise more lenience and flexibility in the use of these collection standards. But in this bill these old standards which we discarded for tax cheats are sacrosanct for debtors.

So what happens if the IRS gets it wrong? What happens if rents in your town or other costs of living do not resemble what the IRS thinks they are? Under this bill you would have to get a lawyer and prove that the IRS is wrong and the cost of living in your town is what it is. You would have to go to court and prove that you will not be receiving the income from the job you lost 6 months ago. If not, you will be presumed to be an abuser of the bankruptcy system.

Who is hardest hit by this? Honest debtors who are in real trouble because they were laid off or for whatever other reason they cannot afford a lawyer. Do you know why? Because people who file for bankruptcy are generally broke.

Our substitute has a sensible test that passed the Senate overwhelmingly in the 105th Congress. This substitute will also provide true protection for children by limiting the ability of creditors to preserve their claims after discharge when, without the bankruptcy court's protection, they will be able to capture funds that should go for support of the debtor's children. Making child support the first priority, as the bill does, will do nothing for children if credit card debt survives bankruptcy to compete with child support obligations. Because the priority does not survive the bankruptcy, Mom has to go to the State court where there are no priorities and compete with the banks' lawyer, which she does not have to do now.

The substitute will also undo changes to Chapter 13 to ensure that debtors who want to enter into a repayment plan will be able to succeed. Changes to Chapter 13, which incorporates the same calculations and IRS standards from the means test, even if you are below the median income, even if you file for Chapter 13 voluntarily, would guarantee that these plans will fail even more often than the 60 percent failure rate that we have now with completely volunteer plans.

The substitute also ensures that unsecured creditors will not be able to use new legal tricks to jump ahead of other creditors.

It also prevents debtors from using bankruptcy court to evade lawful debts

for criminal civil rights violations, including discrimination against members of the Armed Forces, discrimination to deprive a person of a federally protected right, threats to religious institutions or individuals on the basis of religion, or using force or the threats of force to deprive women of their right to see a doctor.

That is right; we are still suggesting that people that violate the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act should not be able to use the bankruptcy courts to discharge their debts or to use the courts to evade payments and force people who already have been awarded a judgment to chase them through the bankruptcy system at great expense. That is the rule of law, and that is what this bill should contain.

We should not subordinate the rights of women, of the members of our Armed Forces, of houses of worship or people suffering discrimination just because some banks want to tilt the system in their favor.

Allowing the bankruptcy courts to become a safe haven for people who violate our civil rights laws is inexcusable, even in the cause of providing special benefits to the special interests, which is the chief purpose of this bill.

The substitute also provides enhanced protection for employee benefits in Chapter 11 and salaries, and remedies for corporate wrongdoing in Chapter 11. It is the original version of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt). Their compromise is an important start, and I was pleased to support it a few minutes ago. Our substitute finishes the job.

The substitute provides bankruptcy courts with flexibility to protect small businesses from premature or unnecessary liquidation so that they can reorganize and continue in business and not lay off their employees. It also closes a loophole in current law by preventing debtors from taking cases to courts far away from where the business is actually conducted. It also protects the rights of debtors to uphold contracts in bankruptcy.

The substitute provides for additional bankruptcy judges according to the most recent needs assessment by the Judicial Conference. We have a crisis in the bankruptcy courts that will only be made worse by the litigation explosion this bill will cause, yet the sponsors of this bill have refused to update it to reflect current needs for judges. That will only result in delay and increased costs for everyone who has a stake in the bankruptcy system, debtors, creditors, everyone.

It also strikes pro-IRS amendments that would elevate the rights of taxing authorities over that of other creditors and debtors. Many of you have probably not taken the time to read title VII of the bill. You should show it to a tax lawyer at home, to someone you trust, and ask them what it does. Is there any rational reason to give taxing authorities more rights than other creditors in bankruptcy?

Is there any reason to shortchange businesses and individuals to pay off the government? Since when did this House become a bunch of cheerleaders for the tax collectors?

The substitute will prevent bankruptcy by providing real disclosure of the borrower's actual credit card debt and the cost of borrowing. A similar amendment was adopted by the Senate in the 105th Congress. The current bill provides only an 800 number and deceptive ``examples'' of repayment costs, rather than the actual costs of credit to inform the debtor. Is it too much to ask that people should be given the information they need on the costs of interest and fees so they can plan their finances responsibly and avoid bankruptcy? The substitute, unlike the bill, will require that.

The substitute also protects against corruption of bankruptcy proceedings by deleting amendments that would allow for abusive motions, that would allow for conflicts of interest on the part of investment bankers, that would allow bankruptcy professionals to delay accountability in court for their wrongdoing.

Bankruptcy reform is an important and laudable goal; but it must be balanced and everyone, debtors and creditors alike, must be held accountable. The current bill would encourage abuse of genuinely distressed families and allow credit card companies to continue their abusive practices.

I urge everyone to support the Democratic substitute so that we can have real reform in the bankruptcy system rather than the sham bill before us that simply reaches into the pockets of low- and middle- income people in situations of distress and in 60 or 70 different ways, takes the money out of their pockets and gives it to the big banks and the credit card companies, which is the entire purpose of the bill before us, without the substitute.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is true, as the distinguished gentleman said a moment ago, that this bill has been before us for a long time. It is not true that it has gotten a consensus. Well, actually it is true that it has gotten a consensus: a consensus of opposition from just about every professional group, every consumer group, every labor group, every women's group, every minority group, every children's welfare group, every professional bankruptcy group, every trustees' group, every Chapter 13 trustees' group, all the judicial groups. They all oppose the bill.

Now, it is true that it has gotten a majority of this House in the past. That is unfortunate. Hopefully we will reconsider that.

For example, the Committee on the Judiciary has received testimony from many sources, most recently from the Commercial Law League of America, the Nation's oldest creditors' rights organization, to the effect that the business provisions in this bill will destroy businesses, especially small businesses. The substitute would correct this problem by giving distressed companies the needed flexibility to reorganize successfully.

Organized labor has also spoken out against the business provisions of this bill because they recognize that a failed reorganization hits workers the hardest. They are the ones who lose their jobs, they are the ones who lose their benefits, they are the ones who see their pensions evaporate.

If you had a large or small business bankruptcy in your district, you know what happens when a company goes under. Preserving value in a company through successful rehabilitation where it is possible benefits everyone: the employees, the creditors, the communities.

This bill, however, imposes rigid and inflexible deadlines on small businesses, especially those dealing with the time in which a company may propose a plan of reorganization. It also places absolute limits on the time in which a business must decide whether to assume or reject a commercial lease, even if they are current in their rent payments. So you cannot wait for the Christmas season to see how you are doing and whether you can survive or not or whether you should throw in the towel. That limit could prove disastrous in cases involving businesses with hundreds of stores. Does anyone know about the K-Mart bankruptcy or the cinema multiplex bankruptcies? How would arbitrary deadlines have affected those cases?

Other arbitrary rules that would force a conversion of a case from reorganization to liquidation are dangerous to our economy and to American small business.

When this bill first appeared in 1997, everyone was singing ``Happy Days Are Here Again.'' There were few fears that massive bankruptcies in our airline industry, the collapse of much of our high-tech industry, the implosion of such market bellweathers as Enron and WorldCom were just over the horizon.

It would be foolhardy for the Members of this House to ignore what is going on in the real world just because this House has adopted this bill in the past. In the case of these business provisions, it could mean the loss of thousands of jobs, the unnecessary liquidation of valuable and still-potentially viable businesses, and the loss of business and value for trade creditors and communities.

Let us take an example from the financial pages. Recently, The New York Times reported that United Airlines was seeking extension on its April 8 deadline for filing a plan of reorganization. They are seeking extension until October 6.

Why are they seeking this extension? According to the report, ``The extra time would give United the chance to gauge the consequences of any war with Iraq on the airline industry.''

Is there anyone here, other than one of United's competitors, who does not think that that makes sense? Do we want to insist that United file a claim without getting a handle on what is about to happen? Would the Members of this House prefer to just liquidate the whole thing?

According to The Times again, ``The Air Transport Association said in a report that a long conflict could prompt the industry to cut 70,000 more jobs on top of the 100,000 lost since the September 11 attacks in 2001. It said several carriers could be forced into bankruptcy along with United and US Airways which have filed for Chapter XI protection last summer.''

In fact, an ATA spokesperson was quoted in the London Financial Times just this morning as stating that the war could add another $4 billion to airline losses on top of the $5.7 billion forecast and cut a further 2,200 flights daily. The same spokesperson warned that further deterioration in the industry could make the prospect of ``forced nationalization of the industry not unrealistic.''

In court papers, United requested an extension of time until October ``to avoid premature formulation of a Chapter 11 plan, and to ensure that the formulated plan takes into account the interests of the company, its employees, and its creditors.''

Should not the law allow courts to review the facts and decide whether or not such flexibility is, as the Bankruptcy Code has long required, ``in the best interests of the creditors and the estate''?

This problem is not confined to United. This morning the Financial Times reported that Standard and Poors has placed 11 other airlines on the credit watch. As a result of the 1991 Gulf War, three major airlines were forced into bankruptcy. Our job is to make the system work better, not to wreck it.

Chapter 11 is a model that other countries, most recently Estonia, are trying to emulate. They look to our system of rehabilitating going concern value where possible as preferable to the emphasis on liquidation and other systems.

Just as the rest of the world is realizing that our system encourages risk-taking, entrepreneurship, and promotes the rehabilitation of distressed businesses, this bill takes our system back in the other direction to force liquidation instead of permitting the flexibility that encourages reorganization and the survival of these businesses.

The substitute that I am offering solves that problem and keeps the current system for these businesses. Perhaps this House could pause long enough to listen to the sound of the market forces before acting to force thousands more companies into liquidation and destroy tens of thousands of jobs. Keep the flexibility in the current system by passing this substitute.

Mr. Chairman, in summary, the alleged reason for this bill, that lots of debtors are taking advantage of the credit card companies and are costing an average consumer $400 a year in higher interest, is sheer nonsense. The reason there are more bankruptcies, studies have shown, is because there is so much credit and too easy credit being given to people who are already head over heels in debt, and people are having too much debt in relation to their income.

If we want to cut down the number of bankruptcies, we should do something about irresponsible extension of credit to people already head over heels in debt. The bill does not do that.

The evidence is that people are more reluctant now to file bankruptcy than they were years ago. The bill ignores that. The bill would force many people into Chapter 13 when they are better served in Chapter 7.

Recently, Professor Staten, whose work for the credit industry provided much of the empirical fodder for this legislation, observed that this legislation would move only about 5 percent of Chapter 7 cases into Chapter 13, and that the legislation would have no effect on the number of bankruptcies. Similarly, according to James Blaine, CEO of the North Carolina State Credit Union, ``Charge-offs are well under control at 46/100 of a percent of total loans,'' less than a half of 1 percent. In other words, 99.5 percent of credit union loans are repaid as promised, and 41.1 percent of charge-offs are related to bankruptcy. Or said another way, just .19 percent, less than 2/10ths of 1 percent, of total credit union loans result in a bankruptcy loss. So taking the high estimate of a 15 percent rate of abuse, the calculation reveals that total losses on loan portfolios are less than 3/100ths of 1 percent.

That should not lead to a draconian bill such as this, a bill that, in addition, cracks down on small businesses and will force many of them into liquidation as opposed to being reorganized.

The substitute keeps some flexibility in the system, enables human judgment to see, on the part of bankruptcy judges, to determine when there is an abuse of the system and a bankruptcy filing must be disallowed and when it should go forward.

Perhaps the worst thing about this bill is the adoption of the IRS rigid guidelines, the adoption of the rigid guidelines that allow no room for any discretion. That is not the way we should write legislation.

Finally, let me simply say that notwithstanding the claims by the consumer credit industry to the contrary, consumer lending is the most profitable enterprise. According to Bloomberg News, CitiGroup, Inc., said ``Fourth quarter profit fell 37 percent because of higher loan costs, and the costs of settling claims at the world's biggest financial services company misled customers with biased stock research.'' But the biggest profit center was the credit cards.

Finally, anyone who thinks that credit card companies, by being able to take more money, to squeeze more money from middle- and low-income people who, because of a job loss or a medical emergency, are in extreme situation and bankruptcy, anyone who thinks they are going to lower the interest rates and save consumers $400 ignores the history of the last 20 years, and ought to purchase the Brooklyn Bridge from people who do not own it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise the extraordinary efforts of NYU Downtown Hospital and its Chinese Community Partnership for Health program, for all of their work in health education, outreach and case management throughout lower Manhattan. I salute them on the occasion of the fourth annual Hong Kong Television Broadcast Limited Benefit Variety Show, which raises funds for this worthy cause.

Lower Manhattan is a diverse community that welcomes thousands of new immigrants every year, especially to the dynamic neighborhood of Chinatown. NYU Downtown Hospital is the only health care facility in the area and works to guarantee that these immigrants have access to quality health care.

The hospital has numerous successful outreach programs including the Chinese Community Partnership for Health (CCPH) program. The CCPH works to promote health care to all the residents of New York's Chinese community, including the tens of thousands of new residents each year. For ten years, the CCPH has served more than 80,000 garment and restaurant workers, elderly Chinese residents and school children in the Hospital's service area.

The centerpiece of the Partnership program is its health screening activities conducted by specially trained outreach teams that include bilingual nurses with both Eastern and Western healthcare concepts and practices. CCPH helps these immigrants overcome language and cultural barriers which prevent them for receiving the medical assistance they need and deserve.

To help raise funds for this worthy cause, CCPH and NYU Downtown Hospital will host a three-day extravaganza featuring a celebrity gala dinner and culminating in the Benefit Variety Show. Produced by the Hong Kong Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB), the Benefit Variety Show is an annual event in its fourth year that will be held in New York on March 22nd. The festivities are broadcast worldwide, which helps to display New York's tremendous diversity.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the many individuals who work tirelessly to make this event an annual success, including Sir Run Run Shaw, Executive Chairman of TVB, George C.K. Liu, Chairman of the Physician Committee, and Hong Kong Superstars Jerry Lamb, Sonija Kwok, Edwin Siu, Joey Yung, Steven Ma, Moses Chan, Ming-Fai Koi, and Christopher Wong. I would also like to recognize the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, who are the grand benefactors of this event and do so much throughout Chinatown to serve and protect the interests of the Chinese community in New York City.

I appreciate all the good work that CCPH does to promote quality health care and I wish them great success with this year's variety show.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young); the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), the subcommittee chairman; and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), for their bipartisan support and expeditious handling of this bill on behalf of our former colleague, Ted Weiss.

Ted Weiss was my predecessor in this House. Ted Weiss first ran for Congress in 1966. I was a freshman in Columbia College, and I worked on that campaign. He ran on an anti-Vietnam War platform, and he was not successful. But whereas the previous candidate had lost to the incumbent by 2,500 votes, Ted Weiss lost by 61 votes. Two years later in 1976, Ted Weiss was elected to be Congress where we owe him a great debt of thanks for his dedication for increased funding for AIDS research. In fact, Ted Weiss was the sponsor of the very first funds for AIDS research in this House.

He was a staunch supporter for the human rights movement, and he worked to ensure dignity and equality for Vietnam veterans. He was a great supporter of the rights and aid to Vietnam veterans. These were a few of the causes of which Ted was a tireless advocate and worker.

He was born in Hungary, as was mentioned. He escaped with his family on the last ship out of Hungary before World War II. He settled in New Jersey. He graduated from South Amboy High School in 1946. After his service in the Army, he attended Syracuse University, earning both undergraduate and law degrees.

In 1953 Ted entered public service as an assistant district attorney in New York City. He served as assistant D.A. for a number of years. As a matter of interest, he roomed with a friend of his while he was assistant district attorney. The friend went on to become the minority leader of the State Senate in later years.

In 1961 Ted was elected to the New York City Council, being the first reformed Democratic member of the city council and served on the city council until his election to Congress in 1976.

The Almanac of American Politics for many years when it talked about Ted's election to Congress mentioned that he had become so recognized as a tribune of the people that in an open, solidly Democratic seat he was unopposed for an open Democratic seat in the primary. He declared his candidacy and no one else ran. During his tenure in Congress, he was a staunch supporter of civil liberties. His legislative record was built around the service of the Government Operations Committee where he chaired the Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations.

He was instrumental in establishing procedures for the timely planned conversion of surplus military bases to peacetime uses. He was the recipient of numerous awards and honors, including the NAACP's National Legislative Award.

It is most fitting and proper that we honor Ted Weiss by designating the Federal building at 290 Broadway as the Ted Weiss Federal Building. It is in what was Congressman Weiss's district. It would be a fitting tribute to his memory and to the great service he rendered to the State of New York and to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for H.R. 145. I do hope this time the Senate will not be totally tied up in bureaucracy and we will manage to pass this bill in time. I know of no opposition to the bill. I again thank the other people who have helped with this, including the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette). Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this bill unanimously.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, one thing that has not been remarked upon is that the cap of $250,000 for pain and suffering, whether a baby is killed, a person is paralyzed for life, an old person is killed, regardless, aside from economic damages, they can only get $250,000. But that cap is not inflated. When that was first written in 1975 in California, $250,000 was worth what today is worth $1.6 million. The $250,000 now is worth what was then worth less than $39,000.

If there is no inflater put into this bill, and the Republicans in committee voted against it, except a couple of them, and they would not let me bring it onto the floor, then what we are really saying is people should get no recovery at all for pain and suffering and lifelong anguish and death and dismemberment. None. Only for lost wages, if they are workers, or for medical bills. Because eventually that is what this $250,000 will be worth, next to nothing.

Finally, on frivolous lawsuits. On contingency fees you cannot bring frivolous lawsuits, which is why this bill does not mention it and why talking about it is so dishonest.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss a silent, yet deadly, epidemic facing the country: domestic violence. Every 9 seconds a woman is battered in the United States. In 2001, 80,000 women and children in New York State alone requested help from domestic violence programs, and these were only the documented cases. Many more cases go unmentioned as women, fearing to come forward, leave the assaults unreported.

The most common form of domestic abuse is physical; but many men abuse their wives and partners emotionally, sexually, and economically; and women are not the only victims. Between 3.3 and 10 million children annually witness the abuse that occurs between their parents, and so the domestic violence cycle is passed on from generation to generation.

For many years domestic violence has been viewed as a woman's problem, but that is not the case. Domestic violence is a woman's problem, a man's problem, the community's problem. The time is long overdue for men to take a stand and say that domestic violence is unacceptable. We must have full funding for the Violence Against Women Act to protect women who are victims. The President has said so, but his 2004 budget proposes a $19 million cut in funding for domestic violence. We demand full funding for the Violence Against Women Act. We commend the groups who work so tirelessly to extend this message.