Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, this is a proposal for $35 million out of CDPG funds for a convention center. We have had a lot of debate about the eligibility requirements of CDPG during the appropriation. At the urging of the gentlewoman from Florida, we modified a proposal extending funds to fire fighting, so that it was fully consistent with CDBG eligibility. This amendment would be a very big breach in that wall. It is a large amount of money for a particular purpose; the purpose may well be a reasonable one. There are many cities where similar needs could be put forward. It has not had any consideration at the subcommittee or committee level. There was some proposal made, and it was not pursued. It takes a very large chunk of CDBG for special purpose. Indeed, if you look at the current existing special purpose for CDBG, the existing special purpose for CDBG is $60 million. This would add to that $60 million, but it would add more than half as much as is currently set aside for that purpose. It does not seem to be appropriate to take an amount that is equal to more than half of what is currently set aside for the entire country for special purpose CDBG, use it without any regard for eligibility requirements for a particular project, no matter how worthy in one city, when dozens of other communities that would have similar projects would not get a chance to do anything similar. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. It was originally described as a convention center, but I should note that was when we were talking about $15 million. When it was first raised in the committee, it was $15 million. Now it is $35 million. Whether or not commitments were made by people now departed, in many senses, cannot be binding on us today. The question is, do we set the precedent? I agree that there is a need here. There is need in much of the country. I would hope the leadership on both sides would be willing to expand the total amount of money that could go for CDBG and related purposes. But we just adopted a budget, which in my judgment underfunds this category. To take $35 million for one community without any kind of process of checking out of a fixed amount of money that is going to be available in that allocation seems to me very unwise no matter what was promised 15 years ago. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I do not deny that this whole process speaks to a need of the speaker. I have a pretty good idea of exactly what that need is in the current political context. But the notion that it does not take from the other programs is simply wrong. We have a budget. We have 602(b) allocations. This does not add $35 million to the overall allocation. It takes out of the allocation that flows from that limited, and I think inadequate, budget $35 million. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say, Madam Chairman, that I believe this does give a new meaning to the phrase ``special purpose.'' I had previously thought special purpose had to do with the more narrow purposes of community development block grant. It seems to me that with this $35 million proposal that the gentleman from Ohio says was specifically approved by the Speaker, to meet one of the speaker's needs, we are broadening the purposes beyond what is appropriate for a community development block grant program. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I may not be in opposition. I was hoping to clarify this. I certainly agree that we should enlist the valuable help of faith-based organizations in dealing with social problems. When we first confronted this during my congressional tenure in the context of child care, I supported full inclusion of churches but I did have one question and I hope I can engage the gentleman about it. His amendment, very correctly I believe, says these funds can only be given if they are in accordance with the establishment clause of the first amendment. My concern was the omission of the free exercise clause. Maybe it was unintentional. And I do not necessarily mean to make a lot out of it, but I have this concern. What about a citizen who happens to live in the area where the service is being provided to a religious organization who wishes to avail himself or herself of the federally funded service who is not religious and does not wish to be? Is there a first amendment free exercise protection so that the citizen who wishes to partake of the program can do so without being required as a condition of that to undergo certain religious activities?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman. It is nice to have one more affirmation of the fact that wearing a Catholic collar is not an obstacle to one's performance, whether it is here as the Chaplain or elsewhere. I would then ask the gentleman, we do not need to do it now, but as this bill proceeds and we get to conference, would there be a problem, and would I ask him to look at adding where he has the establishment clause, also the free exercise clause. I do not ask him to agree to that now, but is that something that we could work together on?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I was puzzled to hear the gentleman from Oklahoma say that they were not for physical health reasons in most cases. The reason I say that is I went to the Committee on Rules to ask for the right to offer an amendment that would have allowed this only in cases where there was severe, adverse, long-term physical health consequences. Now, many do not think that does enough. It would not be enough for me to vote for the bill, but at least it would have met that argument. So when the gentleman says, oh, but we are just talking about all health, not just physical health.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that this has come to a motion to recommit. That is a consequence of the very lamentable refusal of the majority to allow any amendments to this bill. Indeed, if I had my preference, this would not be a motion to recommit. There was a consensus measure worked out in a bipartisan fashion by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), and others; but it is not germane to the bill. When the Committee on Rules would not allow that as an amendment, this became our only choice for recommittal. But I offer it, anyway, even though in the eyes of many, even if it passed, it would not make the bill fully acceptable. But it would clearly make it less damaging. Because here is what the bill does in the form in which it was presented. It says that even if in the opinion of the physician a failure to use this procedure in these circumstances could result in severe physical harm to the mother, he could perform it only at risk of going to prison. It shows how extreme the bill is. And I stress that because there are many who believe that this is a right a woman should have untrammeled legislatively who think this is too much, this amendment that I offer, of an impingement and would not support the bill. But others would feel differently. The fact, however, is that the majority is so intent, I believe, unfortunately, on an issue that they will not allow even this amendment. Because I must tell my colleagues that while again this might be to the distress of many, an amendment like this would probably change enough votes so that a veto could be overridden. If the intention was in fact to minimize this procedure to have it occur only when it was medically necessary, indeed the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), the Hoyer-Greenwood amendment, would have been made in order and would have passed. And if it had passed, this amendment would not have been offered. Failing that, this amendment at least reduces the harm. It is a restriction because it rules out mental health. I believe myself that there are often very good mental health reasons for allowing a woman to undergo this anguishing procedure. But this amendment concedes even that. It says, okay, they believe mental health cannot be trusted. I disagree. But in the interest of, at least, trying to diminish the harm and draw some lines, we said, okay, can we at least get an acknowledgment that physical health, severe, long-lasting physical health can be a reason for this. And the majority says no. That is a sign of a lack of willingness to be reasonable. It is a willingness to insist, I believe, on both a procedure, no committee, no amendment, and a bill that is so extreme that even adverse physical consequences to the health of the mother cannot be a reason. So that what we are talking about, as I said, is an issue and not a bill. There could be a consensus in this House on trying to reduce the procedure and reducing late-term abortions. That is not what the bill does. The bill is a continuation in an ongoing political activity. I will predict what will happen. The bill will pass. It will be vetoed. The veto override will be held. The veto override will be held so that it can be brought forward at a politically propitious time. And people will then be accused if they vote to uphold a veto of a bill that is very possibly unconstitutional, according to many circuits, they will be accused of a callousness, they will be accused of a disregard. Well, the fact is that two separate amendments had been offered, which, if either had been adopted, would have led many people to have voted for a bill which would have substantially reduced the procedure either in terms of the physical health or, better yet, in terms of the lateness. Neither amendment was allowed. If, in fact, people were trying genuinely to minimize this issue, one or both of those amendments would have been voted on and we could have gotten a law. But it is easy to predict what will happen. We will get no law. We will get a veto. We will get an override vote on a veto held late in the Congress. This is a bill, I said it before and I am going to repeat it, with no committee hearing or markup, a bill which is the subject of severe debate in the courts, where the Federal circuit courts have divided and many have held this sort of legislation unconstitutional, does not even go to committee for the kind of constitutional examination that might help. Then amendments are rejected, a bipartisan amendment widely supported. I noticed 14 Republicans voted against the rule. By Republican standards, they are a very disciplined lot. That is a great cataclysm, 14 Republicans voting against the rule, in protest against the arbitrary procedure. So late in the congressional term, we will have a vote on an abortion veto override on a very rigid bill that makes no allowance even for the fiscal health of the mother after a procedure in which there was no committee and no amendment. That is a late-term abortion. It will come late in the term and aborts the legislative process.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and he may have a chance to. But I assume that means the gentleman will vote against the rule, because I went to the Committee on Rules and asked for this amendment to be made in order. This bill is being done in the most abusive way ever. Do we want to know what is a late-term abortion? The real late-term abortion bill is the one that the gentleman from Maryland was not about to offer. Late- term abortion describes this legislative procedure. We wait until late in the term so we can get maximum political advantage, and then we abort the legislative procedures; no committee vote, no amendments being made in order. The gentleman from Oklahoma says well, 1 or 2 percent, so let us try to deal with the 1 or 2 percent. That is not what we have. This is a bill in search of a veto for use for political purposes. Members who sincerely want to restrict this procedure and some would want to restrict it more than I would want to, and I might lose on that. But the rule is calculated to get a veto. It does not allow what the gentleman from Oklahoma talked about. The Committee on Rules specifically refused my amendment and many of the strongest pro-choice people think my amendment gives away too much; I do myself in some ways, but at least the body should be able to vote on it. The true late-term bill was the gentleman from Maryland's. This is the most outrageous repudiation of the democratic procedure I have seen in 20 years. A bill where there is pending constitutional litigation where some courts have held this bill, in effect, unconstitutional at the circuit court level, does not have any committee consideration, comes to the floor with no amendment whatsoever, solely for the purpose of being used politically. The money that is being spent on this bill ought to be reported to the Federal Election Commission as a Republican campaign contribution.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, he is correct.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I hope some alert journalist is going to publish a catalogue of the excuses for Congress never to make a tough decision. We should have done it before. We cannot do it after. We are told, by the way, that it is too dangerous for the troops to be there. Now, how do we increase the danger by withdrawing them? There may be good reasons for keeping them there. I believe there are. But protecting them from the danger of being there is hardly a good reason to keep them there. And that is what they are saying. People say they agree, the Europeans ought to pay more. But this House has consistently refused to do anything to force the Europeans to do it. And they know empty rhetoric when they see it. They are very sophisticated. What this amendment is intending to do, by the way, is not to pull out. This is an amendment that says Europe should begin to pay up. Apparently, there is a lack of confidence in our European allies amongst some of the leadership in the Committee on Appropriations that is greater than there is for us. Because they say, if we condition our staying there on the Europeans doing what General Shelton complains that they are not doing, that will lead to abandonment. Well, if the troops are overexposed and it is costing us too much money, there are two things to do, have the Europeans pay their fair share or withdraw them. We hope it is the former. But in neither case are we increasing the danger to the troops.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); and I first thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for the flexibility he showed, because I think we have a solution here which preserves the very important purpose that he and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) have been working on of getting assistance to the fire fighters without impinging negatively elsewhere. The gentleman from Maryland played an important roll here, as well as the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), who has made her entrance as I speak. I do not know if the meek are going to inherit the earth, but they are entitled to inherit this bill after the brilliant work of the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, of course, Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about Luxembourg and Iceland, as the gentleman knows. The gentleman wants to get into burlesque. We are talking about France and Germany. They are the ones who made the commitment. They are the ones whose taxpayers the gentleman is so valiantly defending. Secondly, the amendment says there must be a safe and orderly withdrawal. But, finally, we are not making policy. We are just telling people to live up to it. It is General Shelton who said I am not letting the American troops be put at risk because of the failure of the Europeans to live up to their commitments. It is General Shelton, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who has said, the failure, the ongoing failure of the Europeans, France and Germany, and Italy and England, they are the ones who are endangering the troops.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman from Alabama, that I do not think they would lie. I think they would be willing, however, to mislead my colleague, if he were as willing to be misled as he is.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate that we just heard from the gentleman in charge of foreign aid, because this is the biggest foreign aid program in the history of America. It is one in which the United States' taxpayers consistently and generously subsidize the other richest people in the world. Europe will be very happy if the combined establishment here, the leadership, the President, all these putative opponents, come together to defeat this, because no bigger present could be given the European taxpayers than this amendment. The gentleman from Alabama says we have already done that; we said they cannot spend more than 15 percent. Lo and behold it came to 14.9 percent, no doubt an independently arrived at calculation. But here is what the facts are. On March 1, two articles, which at an appropriate point I will put in the Record, reflect what General Shelton said. ``General Shelton's letter reflected anger at European allies for not contributing as many troops as requested for expected in Kosovo.'' That is from the New York Times. Here is The Washington Post quoting Mr. Bacon, the Pentagon spokesperson. ``The chairman, General Shelton, made it clear he doesn't think it's appropriate for American troops to go to out-of-sector operations on a regular basis to take up police work that should be done by the forces in those other sectors.'' Yes, we have said that they should help out, but we have zero enforcement. This is the only enforcement. Now, I know when in control of the administration and in control of the appropriations process, one can always say it is not perfect. Agreed, it is not perfect. It is just better than anything that we have come up with. Let us be very clear here. What we are seeing is the pattern in this House. When we see the administration do something, we will yell; we will scream; we will beat our chests. We will do everything but vote to change it. There is no doctrine of executive usurpation in foreign policy. What we have is a consistent unbroken pattern of congressional dereliction of duty in foreign policy. There are Members here who will go home and make great speeches, some will not even wait to go home, saying it is terrible we are in Kosovo; we are spending too much; the Europeans are not doing anything. Here is a vehicle to do something about it, and there is not room under the table as Members jump to get under it. This is the only enforcement vehicle we have. All this talk about what the rules are means nothing. Look at what General Shelton said. They are not there; we are there. My colleagues say we have to help our troops. Do we help our troops by continuing to allow Europe not to do this? What this House will be if we defeat this amendment, we will continue our roles as the enablers of European dependence. We will say to the Europeans, promise them anything, but do not follow through. And when anybody tries to enforce that promise, they do not have to worry, because they will come back and say, well, it is not perfect, it is not this. As far as the waiver is concerned, the amendment does say the withdrawal has to be safe and orderly. The fact is this is the only enforcement vehicle around. Mr. Chairman, the articles I referred to above are included for the Record. [From the New York Times, Mar. 1, 2000] Joint Chiefs Chairman Protests Troops' Mission to Kosovo Town (By Jane Perlez) Irritated that American troops had to retreat from a bottle-throwing mob in Kosovo, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Henry H. Shelton, has written to NATO's supreme commander, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, telling him not to use American troops outside their designated sector. The letter, according to Pentagon and NATO officials, told General Clark that other countries involved in the NATO peacekeeping operation had to send more troops to Kosovo before significant numbers of American troops would again be allowed on a mission outside the sector assigned to the United States' control. General Shelton sent the letter to General Clark a few days after the retreat on Feb. 20 of 350 American soldiers from Mitrovica. The American soldiers had been sent out to the troubled city, where Albanian and Serbian residents are at a standoff and where French troops needed reinforcements. Pentagon officials acknowledged today that General Shelton had concurred with General Clark's plan to send the troops from their sector in southeast Kosovo to Mitrovica before the mission was under way. But although General Shelton had agreed ahead of time to the mission, the underlying tone of the letter, according to officials, questioned the wisdom of sending American troops into a volatile situation involving hostile Serbian civilians. General Shelton's letter, and a mood of discontent about the Kosovo peacekeeping operation in the Senate Armed Services Committee during a hearing with General Clark today, reflected anger at European allies for not contributing as many troops as requested or expected in Kosovo. Several senators complained that after the United States had led the air campaign in the Kosovo war, the Europeans had pledged to lead the peacekeeping in Kosovo but had failed to live up to their promise. ``There is more than whiff of hype, where the Europeans talk of doing more,'' then fail to carry out their commitments in Kosovo, said Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan. The chairman of the committee, Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, asked General Clark why American troops were involved in house-to-house searches for weapons in Mitrovica. Senator Warner recalled that in Somalia, where American troops were involved in an ill-fated peacekeeping operation in 1992, house-to-house searches by American soldiers were ruled out as too dangerous. General Clark said that in contrast to Somalia, where American troops were not welcome, the NATO troops in Kosovo were respected and wanted by large groups of the local population. But pressing ahead, Senator Warner questioned the utility of a weapons search in a city that was only a few miles from a porous border with Serbia across which weapons freely flowed. Senator Warner asked, ``What was the total number of arms'' seized in Mitrovica? General Clark replied, ``Twenty-five.'' A NATO official explained after the hearing that the searches for weapons in Mitrovica were conducted by troops of several nations and were announced to the community by community leaders just beforehand so that the searches appeared evenhanded. Both Albanian and Serbian homes were searched, in northern and southern Mitrovica, the official said. In his testimony, General Clark said that the Yugoslav president, Slobodan Milosevic, was very much in control in Serbia and that he was unlikely to be defeated or disappear any time soon.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman knows that they are not going to live up to their commitment because they know what strong support they have in this House for escaping any consequences of evading that commitment. All they have to do is listen to this debate and listen to the administration, and they can say that they are free to make commitments, ignore them, and pay no penalty for them.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to represent a Congressional District that is home to an important cultural institution known as the Jewish Women's Archive. The organization, which is located in the town of Brookline, Massachusetts, was established in 1995 to record and publicize the remarkably rich history of Jewish women in North America. Among JWA's key projects are a ``virtual archive'' that provides an on-line directory of source materials that are available on Jewish women in libraries and other facilities in the United States and Canada, and its Oral History Project, which is focused on the life stories of twentieth century Jewish women. Another important JWA initiative, which coincides annually with Women's History Month in March, is the ``Women of Valor'' program, an educational and outreach project aimed at helping the Jewish community and, indeed, people of all faiths in North America, to develop a better understanding of the accomplishments of Jewish women. Each year, JWA, in collaboration with Ma'ayan: The Women's History Project in New York, selects three Jewish women who have made notable contributions to our history, creates posters and other educational material providing details about their lives, and then disseminates the materials to more than 8,000 schools, libraries and other interested institutions. Past honorees have included Hadassah founder Henrietta Szold, trade union leader and social welfare activist Rose Schneiderman and poet Emma Lazarus. This year's Women of Valor are former Congresswoman Balla Abzug, anthropologist Barbara Myerhoff and Canadian track and field Olympian Bobbie Rosenfeld. I would add that, as part of Women's History Month, Joyce Antler--JWA Visiting Director of Research--made a presentation on March 22 before the President's Commission on the Celebration of Women in American History. Her testimony, which touched on many aspects of the role of women in history, cannot be reproduced here in toto, but I would like to excerpt one paragraph, because it sums up so well the important mission of JWA: I would like to mention one final strategy used by the Jewish Women's Archive to bring women's history to the public. Last spring, we mounted a program in Boston around the life and legacy of Justine Wise Polier, the activist judge who was a 1999 Woman of Valor. The evening began with moderator Martha Minow of the Harvard Law School asking the question, ``How can a woman so influential in her own lifetime be largely forgotten less than two generations later? And how does a legacy get passed on to another generation?'' The evening began with my own remarks about Polier's life and legacy, followed by personal reflections from Nancy Gertner, a U.S. District Court Judge in Massachusetts, who enthusiastically embraced the similarities between her life and Polier's and left audience members greatly stimulated by the current relevance of Polier's concerns, convictions, and commitments. We have developed other programs across the country in which we bring the past to the present by matching the life and legacy of women of achievement in other generations to those of women today. These programs highlight historical materials that we have collected but place them in new contexts that have local and contemporary relevance. This matching process generates great excitement by allowing audiences to connect in fresh ways to the lessons of the past. Mr. Speaker, in recognition of the excellent work the Jewish Women's Archive performs in helping us to connect with the past in new ways, I submit the following JWA statement on this year's Women of Valor program to be printed in the Record. Schools, Synagogues, Universities and Jewish Community Center to Highlight Jewish Women's Contributions and Accomplishments for Women's History Month 2000 In Boston and around the country, Jews and non-Jews, women and men will have the opportunity to learn about the important, but often-ignored accomplishments of Jewish women during Women's History Month this March. This month, thousands of institutions will celebrate Women's History Month by showcasing the accomplishments and contributions of three Jewish women: a leading political activist, a pioneering anthropologist and a gold-medal winning Olympic athlete. While most Americans are familiar with political activist Bella Abzug, few know about the accomplishments of anthropologist Barbara Myerhoff and Canadian Olympic athlete Bobbie Rosenfeld. All three women are featured in the year 2000 Women of Valor educational poster series produced by the Jewish Women's Archive. In Boston, institutions such as Temple Israel, the Leventhal Sidman JCC, Harvard Hillel and dozens of other places will display the posters throughout Women's History Month and conduct programs highlighting the important role women have played in history. The posters are complemented by a workbook featuring a biography of each Woman of Valor, worksheets and suggested educational activities. In addition, individuals can learn more through an interactive multimedia Women of Valor exhibit on the Jewish Women's Archive website at www.jwa.org. The unique and innovative exhibit includes speeches, photographs, news clips, letters and film clips from archives and libraries throughout the country. ``History teaches us about who we are and where we have been,'' said Gail Twersky Reimer, Executive Director of the Jewish Women's Archive. ``For too long, the contributions of Jewish women have been ignored. Each in her own way, Bella Abzug, Barbara Myerhoff and Bobbie Rosenfeld changed our world. Understanding their work and recognizing their contributions enriches and completes our knowledge about the past.'' The Women of Valor poster series was created to increase awareness of, and interest in, women's history and to stimulate the development of programs that celebrate the lives of Jewish women, past and present. The posters portray their subjects in pictures and narrative, using each woman's own words to create a compelling picture of her achievements and the times in which she lived. Women of Valor posters and accompanying educational materials have been sent to more than 8,000 institutions and organizations throughout the United States and Canada. Created in partnership with MIT's Center for Educational and Computing Initiatives, the Jewish Women's Archive website is the cornerstone of the Archive itself. It includes interactive multimedia exhibits, an on-line database and resources on North American Jewish women. This unique and invaluable research tool is the first stage in the development of a searchable Internet directory of all source materials on Jewish women available in repositories throughout the United States and Canada. Now in its third year, the Women of Valor Project is funded by grants from the Covenant Foundation, Righteous Persons Foundation and the Dobkin Foundation. In previous years, the project has featured Glikl of Hamelin, Rose Schneideman and Henrietta Szold (1997); Rebecca Gratz, Lillian Wald and Molly Picon (1998); and Emma Lazarus, Justine Wise Polier and Hannah Greenbaum Solomon (1999). Women's History Month was designated by the United States Congress in 1987 to raise awareness among students and adults, female and male, of the many and diverse accomplishments women have made throughout history. The Jewish Women's Archive was founded in 1995 to uncover, chronicle and transmit the historical record of Jewish women's lives--their impact on Jewish culture and their active participation in society at large. One of our nation's leading political activists, Bella Abzug (1920-1998) was a civil rights and labor attorney, a U.S. Congresswoman, and an international women's rights activist. As an attorney Abzug mounted an appeal on behalf of an African American man sentenced to death on groundless charges of raping a white woman, and defended numerous clients during the infamous ``with hunts'' instigated by Senator Joseph McCarthy. In Congress, she promoted an agenda focused on social and economic justice. After leaving Congress, Abzug continued to champion women's and civil rights. She presided over the first National Women's Conference in 1977 and worked with other women to found some of the leading feminist organizations of our day. Barbara Myerhoff's (1935-1985) groundbreaking research into American Jewry, their lives, culture and religion initiated a sea change in the field of anthropology, leading other anthropologists to expand from studying exotic communities in foreign countries to studying communities in their ``own backyards.'' Her work affected not only her fellow anthropologists, but also helped a broad audience of men and women understand the importance of storytelling to their own lives. A creative and renowned professor and anthropologist, Myerhoff won an Oscar for her film Number Our Days, based on her 1979 book by the same name. One of Canada's most outstanding athletes, male or female, Bobbie Rosenfeld (1904-1969) championed women's sports both on and off the field. As a competitor in the first Olympic Games to include women in 1928, Rosenfeld led her team to a gold medal in the 400-meter relay and a silver medal in the 100 meter. Despite bouts of severe arthritis, Rosenfled led her softball league in home runs and was voted outstanding women hockey player in Ontario in 1931. When her arthritis became too severe for her to compete, Rosenfeld began coaching track and softball and eventually became a sports columnist for the Toronto Globe and Mail.