Gregory Meeks

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. I thank the gentleman from New York, and I appreciate his hard work.

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the committee for including report language recognizing the tragic killing of Amadou Diallo in the Bronx, New York, in the gentleman's district. However, I still feel the need for additional report language regarding police brutality. In the committee report's section dealing with the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the committee directs BGS to implement a voluntary annual reporting system of all deaths in law enforcement custody, and to provide a report to the committee on its progress no later than July 1, 2000. Although this is a start in addressing this problem, I ask for report language that instructs the Attorney General to do three things: Evaluate and collect data in regard to police brutality; not later than September 15, 2000, to report the findings; and third and most importantly, make recommendations to Congress regarding effective strategies to combat such brutal acts. It is not enough for a statistical report to be issued like the one I have in my hand. We need recommendations to solve this problem, and we need to work hand in hand with the Attorney General. I just ask the gentleman, will he help to work on that to make sure it is in the reporting language?

Mr. MEEKS of New York. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, today we send our Members of the House to work with the members of the Senate to work out a compromise on the Financial Services Act of 1999. While we know, understand, and recognize that banks and other financial companies must be able to compete in an environment that will allow them to expand their powers and become competitive globally, and that our financial institutions are one of the most critical components to ensuring a healthy U.S. economy, our first and foremost responsibility is to those individuals who send us here to Washington each and every election day. Therefore, we must ensure that consumers as well as financial institutions benefit from banking reform. It is meant to protect them from the misuse of their confidential personal information, this amendment, for marketing or other purposes, maintaining their medical privacy, and to make certain that our financial institutions that receive the benefit of government support continue to contribute to the economic health of low- and moderate-income communities. Let me say, we must support CRA. It is an absolute necessity if we are to have a successful bill. Mr. Speaker, today we send our members of the House to work with the members of the Senate to work out a compromise on the Financial Services Act of 1999. The purpose of this act is to provide banks and other financial companies with an environment that will allow them to expand their powers and become more competitive globally. Our financial institutions are one of the most critical components to ensuring a healthy U.S. economy. They are so critical that this Nation develop an independent body known as the Federal Reserve to regulate these institutions. Thus it is vital that this House and the Senate work diligently, and efficiently to develop a final version of the Financial Services Act that will make certain American institutions have a fair opportunity to be the most competitive in the world. However, each of the conferees must remember that their primary goal as members of this House is to protect the interest of the individual citizens of this nation who send us to Congress and who own this nation. Therefore, we must insure that consumers as well as financial institutions benefit from banking reform. It is meant to protect them from the misuse of their confidential personal information for marketing or other purposes, maintain their medical privacy, and make certain that our financial institutions that receive the benefit of government support continue to contribute to the economic health of low- and moderate-income communities. Let me take a moment to emphasize the importance of the Community Reinvestment Act or CRA. There are some in the Senate who believe that CRA is a burden to banks. Let me assure those individuals that they are mistaken. The facts are clear, the overwhelming majority of evidence states that CRA has been a major success. It has been a benefit to low and moderate income individuals, their communities, and most of all to banks. Since 1977, banks and thrifts have made over $1.057 trillion in loan pledges to low-income areas. CRA investments have been widely credited with dramatically increasing home ownership, restoring distressed communities, helping small businesses and meeting the unique credit needs of rural communities. Financial institutions such as Citigroup, BankAmerica, Southwest Bank of Texas, Iron and Glass Bank, and a host of others have all made it clear that CRA is good policy and good for business. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of banking legislation that is good for banks and good for consumers. Vote for the motion to instruct.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today in support of the Democratic substitute sponsored by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and I commend him for the fine work he has done in crafting this substitute, for once again it highlights the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats ``big tent''; Republicans ``small tent.'' The Republicans' small tent fails to extend Social Security solvency and strengthen Medicare. The Republican tax cut, the small tent Republican tax cut, will require $23 billion in borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund over the next 10 years. The Republican small tent would give 65 percent of the total tax cuts to the rich. The Democratic big tent thinks about those middle income Americans. The Democratic big tent thinks about the marriage penalty. The Democratic big tent thinks about the earned-income tax credit. The Democratic big tent thinks about how we can make our poor have a chance in this society so that they too can succeed. One thing we do know for sure; that in the Republican small tent this bill is so bad that if the moderates in the Republicans' small tent were left on their own, they too would vote for this bill. Vote in support of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the Democratic substitute.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, today Congress has before it legislation that will take a first step. Some would like it to be a giant step. Some say it is a baby step, but it is still a first step to a long standing inequality of U.S. trade policy with reference to Africa. The passage of H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, will codify the first-ever trade policy with the nations of sub-Saharan Africa. It is a first step for sub-Saharan African nations who need a financial boost to their economies in order to improve the socioeconomic status of their citizens. It is a first step to trade with the most powerful economy in the world. It is a first step of American investment in Africa that will bring the same benefits it has brought to other developing nations, jobs, skill, training, and a degree of local sourcing and a transfer of technology and best practices that will benefit African business development. It is a shame that it has taken this long for a first step, but it is indeed a first step for the U.S. Trade policy toward other developing nations in Europe, Asia, and South America utilizing similar framework has led to significant economic development in those nations to the point where the GDP growth rate exceeded that of the U.S. To aid the development of Israel, the United States granted duty- and quota-free access for its textiles and apparel. It was the right thing to do for Israel; it is the right thing to do for Africa. In order to ensure that the African people are the major recipients of the benefits of this trade, this legislation contains the strongest anti-illegal transshipment language of any U.S. trade policy. The ambassadors from the African nations and the Organization of African Unity have endorsed this legislation. It is not for us to decide that they do not know what trade policy is best for their nations, just as we in America would not appreciate a foreign nation deciding what international policies are best for America. The sub-Saharan African nations that can participate in this trade policy need to be given the same opportunity and assistance to develop their economies that the U.S. has given to developing countries in Asia, Europe, and South America. Remember, we cannot have a second step without a first step.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I had intended to submit an amendment to the floor, but the amendment deals with some of the same subject matters that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) did, and I just want to add on that the issues which Mr. Davis talked about which have recently been aired on NBC television a few weeks ago is an issue with reference to civil rights violations by the Customs Service at airports throughout the country. John F. Kennedy International Airport, what I believe is the world's premier international gateway located in the Sixth Congressional District of New York, was one of the airports cited by the NBC News report. Here and at other airports Customs agents are engaged in discriminatory practices on people of color. This simple amendment that was offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) is an amendment which ensures the integrity of civil rights laws passed by Congress. For too often at a great human expense many individuals who happen to be of color have been unfairly detained, examined and dehumanized at airports by Customs agents. African Americans and Latino women are asked by Customs agents to go into a room at an airport, strip naked and subject themselves to cavity searches and other dehumanizing tactics. Many times these searches on these women are done by males. This amendment would encourage the Customs Service to meet their obligation under existing civil rights laws and stop the practice of racial profiling and discrimination in our Nation's airports. Every American and every legal entrant into this country has a right to travel freely regardless of his or her race, nationality or ethnicity. It is the responsibility of this body to ensure that the civil rights of all people are protected. Let us send a sound and loud message to the Customs Services that their practices and patterns of abuse against people of color will no longer be tolerated.

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland. Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

Mr. MEEKS of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Madam Speaker, first I want to associate myself with the words of the gentleman from North Carolina. The Constitution has been amended only 27 times over 200 years, and this was to expand our freedom. Why should we amend our Constitution to limit a person's freedom? This Nation stands for freedom, not for enslavement of one's views. The ultimate demonstration of a Nation's commitment to freedom of expression is to allow its symbol of freedom to be used for individual expression. Freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental rights we as United States citizens have. What makes the United States different from Iran, China, Cuba and other countries is that we can voice our concerns freely under the first amendment without the penalty of being fined or going to jail. If we strip our citizens of this right, we will be taking a step backwards to the practices that are pervasive in many tyrannical countries. I am not for flag burning. As the gentleman from North Carolina has indicated, this is not about flag burning, but this amendment would infringe on a person's right to express what they feel. For example, I am against the practices of the Ku Klux Klan, but they still have the right to their freedom of expression. The 1st Amendment protects all people and their opinions--if their opinions disagree with your beliefs--that is what makes this country unique--the environment of discourse and the ability to pick and choose what you believe in. As we debate many beliefs in this great House, let us not forget that each and everyone of us has the opportunity to hear both sides and make an individual decision on what is right and wrong for their constituents. But, the wrong decision would be to limit a person's freedom of expression by penalizing how they feel. The First Amendment makes the U.S. unique from all other countries. Let us continue to be a world leader in preserving our citizen's right under the 1st Amendment.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I support the McCarthy amendment because I believe that gun shows should come under the same laws as gun stores. When individuals buy a gun from a gun store, they must undergo a background check--we must have the same background check for gun shows. This amendment will require under the Brady Law, the instant background check of up to 3 business days on all gun show transactions. This is fair. We should have no exceptions to the rule. Imagine no background checks. According to the National Association of Arms Shows, over 5 million people attend nearly 5,200 gun shows each year in the U.S. No background checks or record keeping was done at these events. According to Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, if the 72- consecutive-hour rule had been in effect over the past 6 months for regular retail store purchases--more than 9,000 felons and other prohibited purchasers would have been able to buy guns because their background checks would not have been completed in time. Now, if this could happen at gun stores--imagine if we do not have this 3 day period when purchasing a gun at a gun show? Why should we make it easier for potential criminals to purchase a gun? An increasing number of criminals--who couldn't pass a background check at a gun store--are finding gun shows to be an easy source of guns. Imagine all the people that have died--because someone bought a gun without a background check. And let me remind you that under Mr. Dingell's amendment proposing a 24-hour background check--17,000 prohibited persons would have slipped through the system. We do not want any more crimes to occur. We do not want any more children in jail. We do not want to go to any more funerals. Let's regulate gun show sales the same way as gun store sales. Support the McCarthy amendment like the: National Alliance of Stocking Gun Dealers, American Bar Association, The Police Foundation, National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly voted against this amendment because of the current climate in this nation due to the police brutality issues in our districts. My rationale was that there have been too many police brutality incidences, as in the Anthony Baez and Amadou Diallo cases in New York City. This has led me to believe that there is a lack of proper training of police officers. I have been a cosponsor of two police brutality bills in the 106th Congress: the Hyde/Serano bill and the Conyers bill. Both of these bills will implement provisions to carefully evaluate police training and police departments. I find it difficult to give broad sweeping licenses to all police officers regardless of their jurisdiction--until a serious evaluation is done of the current situations throughout our country; and legislation is adopted to address the misuse of weapons by police departments. Guns used properly by trained police officers is acceptable. In fact, New York State allows retired police officers to keep their guns. I support this measure. However, I can't support allowing a retired police officer from another part of the country carrying a concealed weapon--and not knowing the standards of his or her training or their record as a police officer in their jurisdiction. Until there are national standards for police training and police departments, I felt compelled to vote against this amendment.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed that many of my colleagues voted for the McCollum amendment yesterday. However, we can right this wrong by supporting the Conyers-Scott substitute. This substitute is fundamentally right because juvenile delinquents will not be jailed with adult criminals. In fact, when you compare New York youth who were prosecuted in adult court with youth with similar charges and prior records in New Jersey who were prosecuted in juvenile court--convictions were no more likely in adult court, punishment was imposed less swiftly, incarceration was less likely, and sentences were nearly identical. This substitute is fundamentally right because it requires states to address the issue of minority confinement. Minority children are \1/3\ of the youth population, but \2/3\ of the children in long-term facilities. Studies indicate that minority youth receive tougher sentences and are more likely to be put in jail than non-minority youth for the same offenses. The substitute is fundamentally right because it would place 20,000 crisis prevention counselors in schools and fund crisis prevention programs--which brings me to an issue that goes hand-in-hand with juvenile justice--the need for educational programs to make sure our children are not getting involved in criminal behavior in the first place. Research has demonstrated that aggressive prevention programs and alternatives to incarceration are most effective in reducing crime. In fact, when asked to rank the long-term effectiveness of possible crime fighting approaches, a majority of police chiefs picked ``increasing investments in programs that help all children and youth get a good start'' as ``most effective''--nearly four times as often as ``trying juveniles as adults.'' Children in the Big Brothers/Big Sisters mentoring programs showed that children participating in the program were 46% less likely to initiate drug use. Cincinnati's violence prevention programs resulted in a 24% drop in crime. A similar gang-reduction program in Ft. Worth, Texas, resulted in a 26% drop in gang-related crime. We need to fight crime by putting more monies into education and crime prevention programs like the ones I mentioned and--after-school programs. The majority of juvenile crimes take place between 3 pm to 6 pm. We need to have enough educational activities after-school to keep our youth mentally busy. We need more after-school jobs for our youth. I would like to see the President and Congress develop AmeriCorps' programs for high school students throughout the year. We need to invest in our youth's present so they can have a bright future--without ever facing the juvenile justice system.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey. As a father of two children attending public school systems in New York, and with another child on the way, I am for finding sensible approaches to address what our children are exposed to without infringing on any individual's constitutional rights. Assuring that children's Internet activity is safe is a goal that we all strive to achieve. However, this amendment is not about addressing child safety at all. What it really is about is an attempt by those Members who fundamentally disagree with the E-rate program and want to eliminate it. This amendment imposes extraordinary financial and administrative burdens on schools and libraries as well as the risk of liability for the technical and constitutional shortcomings of filtering technology. Before this body looks to find ways to eliminate the E-rate program, let us examine how this program benefits communities across this country, and in schools and libraries in low-income and urban and rural areas. They qualify for the highest discounts to assure that every American, regardless of age, income or location, has access to essential tools of the information age. In the first year of the E-rate program, 47 percent of the dollars requested of the E-rate program were for schools and libraries serving economically disadvantaged students and library patrons. In addition, discount requests were received from all 50 States and several special jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands. This program benefits everyone: children, adults, lifelong learners, everyone. Communities across this country are already working to ensure that children's Internet access is properly guided. They are utilizing every available option and choosing those that conform to local needs and standards. This amendment is unnecessary. What this technology does, it levels the playing field for the first time in the history of this country.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 75 which condemns the National Islamic Front (NIF) Government for its genocidal war in Southern Sudan, their support of terrorism and for its gross human rights violations. I want to thank the Chairman, Mr. Royce, and ranking member, Mr. Payne, of the Africa subcommittee for bringing this resolution to the attention of Congress and to the world. Over the past fifteen years some 1.9 million people are dead because of the barbaric and inhumane treatment of the people of Southern Sudan. 1.9 million people have suffered from starvation and famine, which the National Islamic Front Government has allowed millions of people to be sold into slavery. We, as Americans, cannot afford to turn our backs on the people of Sudan in their time of need. We cannot turn our backs on the dark reality of slavery in the 21st century. We must continue to support the Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS) efforts in providing humanitarian relief and most importantly food to the people of southern Sudan. We must show that we are very much concerned about our brothers and sisters in Sudan as we are of our brothers and sisters in Kosovo. We must continue to do what is the morally and just thing to do. For genocide is genocide no matter where it happens. I urge my colleagues to show their compassion and support to the people of Sudan and vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I do not know what world some people have grown up in but I grew up in urban America. From the time that I can recall, I have seen people with guns killing people. It seems as though all of a sudden there is a revolution or an evolution of guns on the streets and we do not want to realize that they are killing people every day. This amendment, the McCarthy amendment, simply closes a loophole. We could go much further. For example, if we go back in the beginning of the 19th century in the wild, wild West when guns were everywhere, there were times where people had to check their guns in. There was gun control back then. Yet here we are now not sensible to see violence is here, and we must do something to stop it. Gun control is what stops it, and we are not even talking about that here in this bill. For if we do not pass this bill, let us then ask who the bell tolls for. The bell tolls for thee.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support the Scott amendment and adamantly against the McCollum amendment. The McCollum, for example, this amendment would negatively impact children by placing children at risk of assault and abuse in adult jails. The McCollum amendment allows Federal prosecutors rather than judges the discretion to try children as adults. The McCollum amendment would lower the age to 13 in some cases at which children can be tried as adults in the Federal system. This amendment, the McCollum amendment broadens the scope of Federal crimes in which juveniles can be tried as adults. Simply put, more children will be placed in adult jails, and they will be as young as 13. I am extremely concerned because the McCollum amendment will also make it easier to put more children, and just tell it like it is, more black and brown children in jail. Children of color make up one-third of all children nationwide, but two-thirds of all incarcerated juveniles are considered ethnic minorities. African American youth aged 10 to 17 constitutes 15 percent of United States population in that age group, but they account for 26 percent of juvenile arrests, 32 percent of delinquency referrals to juvenile court, 41 percent of juvenile detained in delinquency cases, 46 percent of juveniles in correction institutions and 52 percent of juveniles transferred to adult criminal court after judicial proceedings. Minority youth are much more likely to end up in prisons with adult offenders. In 1995, nearly 10,000 juvenile cases were transferred to adult criminal courts by judicial waiver. Of those proceedings, cases involving African American children were 50 percent more likely to be waived than cases involving Caucasian. Mandatory minimum sentencing will enable our children to be at serious risk of abuse and assault. This, the McCollum amendment, goes against current studies which indicate that trying children as adults increases rather than decreases youth crime. Allowing contact between juveniles and adults in adult jails would make children eight times more likely to commit suicide, five times more likely to be sexually assaulted and twice as likely to be assaulted by staff in adult than in juvenile facilities. I support the Scott amendment. By the McCollum amendment imposing new mandatory minimum sentences for children who are convicted of certain offenses--mandatory minimums will impose harsher penalties on youthful offenders than adult criminals guilty of the same offenses under current law. For example, under the McCollum amendment any juvenile who discharges a firearm in a school zone would get a minimum 10-year sentence. An adult currently charged with the same offense would not be subject to the same mandatory penalty. Let me remind you that mandatory sentences are expensive, unfair, and often ineffective. A 1997 Rand study shows that mandatory minimum sentences are not cost effective in reducing drug-related crimes. Even Chief Justice Rehnquist had criticized mandatory minimum sentences as unduly harsh punishment for first-time offenders. We must help our children when they are charged of a crime. We must provide education and counseling services to rehabilitate them back into society. We must not write them off! We must remember that they are still children and we must try harder to help them because they are the future.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 62, which expresses concerns on the escalating violence in Sierra Leone. This resolution deals with the genocide, forced servitude either in the Army and/or enslavement, because it deals with gross human rights violations, and it threatens the stability of a democratic government and a democratic society. Not too long ago, Mr. Speaker, I stood here on the floor of the House saying, as we were involved with the escalating violence in Kosovo, that genocide is genocide, and it is wrong no matter where it is. I say that the genocide that is taking place now in Sierra Leone must be stopped; and we must, as Members of the House and members of the administration, pay attention to what is going on in Sierra Leone and on the continent of Africa. For, indeed, there is a saying that ``to whom much is given, much is required.'' Much has been given to this great Nation of ours, and therefore much is required of it. If we turn our backs on the wrong, the moral wrong, the children who are being murdered and maimed every day, who are not getting an education, who are not getting the opportunity to compete in the global society in which we now live, then we are wrong as Members of this House, and we are wrong as a Nation. We must make efforts. We must put our money where our mouths are. We must make sure that we stop the wrong that is going on in Sierra Leone so that a civilized society can come back to an existence. We must put our foot down as we did in Kosovo to say that enough is enough, and we are going to have a civil government and stop the kinds of inhuman treatment and injustices that are taking place.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 75, and let me thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for bringing this resolution to the floor. I think that it is time that we really pay attention to what is going on in the Sudan. Mr. Speaker, 1.9 million people are dead. These are human beings, people who have flesh and blood just like us. How can we turn our backs on what is happening there? People taken from their homes and put into slavery. Our own dark history in this country knows the evils of slavery, and surely this is a chance for us in this country to redeem ourselves from what happened in our dark past, to make sure that that should never, ever happen on the face of the earth today. How can we talk about going into the 21st century when slavery is still going on? How can we allow such a shameful act to continue? We must, as this resolution begins to do, do something and show that we care about human life; we care about people who may not be our immediate neighbors but they are our brothers in this world. So I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for having the wisdom to bring this forward to the American public, and I think that we as a House and this administration need to surely focus on it as we do any other world crisis.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Gilman-Goss amendment. Haiti is on the eve of democratic elections. We say that we have the moral authority to try to make sure that democracy is across this world. Yet the smallest and the poorest country in this world, we do not want to aid. We have less than 3 to 400 troops in Haiti. Yet we are trying to pull them out on the eve of elections when we may restore hope and dignity to people who are our neighbors. Yet we go all over the place for others. There seems and there is a double standard. We must not let this amendment stand. We must make sure that the bill is not poisoned by this terrible, terrible amendment and help the people who need most the help. To whom much is given, as this country has, much is required.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Madam Speaker, as we seek to provide banks and other financial companies with an environment that would allow them to expand their powers and become more competitive globally, it is our responsibility to make certain that our constituents, the financial institutions' customers, are also provided with an environment that would allow them to prosper. Since 1977, banks and thrifts have made over $1 trillion in loan pledges to low-income areas. CRA investments have been widely credited with dramatically increasing home ownership, restoring distressed communities, and helping small businesses and meeting the unique credit needs of rural America. I cosponsored an amendment offered in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services that would make bank affiliates that sell bank-like financial products subject to CRA review on those products. If they want to play on the same ball field they have to play by the same rules. If this amendment is enacted in the House, on the House floor, bank affiliates will be pleasantly surprised to see that the same result will occur as my banking colleagues did; there is a profit to be made in low-income rural and minority communities. CRA has been good for banks and great for our communities.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in opposition to the emergency supplemental appropriation conference report. This bill is loaded with nonemergency spending that undermines the budget appropriation process but satisfies the special interests. While I strongly support the emergency funding for our military in Kosovo and for a pay raise for our troops and for disaster relief efforts, I strongly object to the unnecessary spending disguised as emergency spending for such things as 3.8 million for the House Page Dormitory, establishing a pilot program within the Library of Congress to bring up 3,000 emerging Russian political leaders to the United States, 475 million in unrequested funds for overseas military construction, 3 million for the United States Commission on International Religious Freedoms. While these in and of themselves are not bad, they are not emergencies. What is equally troubling is that the vital programs that poor and elderly people rely on have been cut dramatically to pay for this bill, 1.2 billion in food stamp programs, 350 million in Section 8 and 22 million for the labor and health. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to do what Americans expect us to do: Vote no.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Democratic Substitute--the Nadler amendment. Specifically, I would like to point out that this amendment eliminates a provision of H.R. 833 which would have allowed landlords to evict debtors once they have filed for bankruptcy. This provision is key because of the assistance it gives to battered women as they seek financial support for themselves and for their children. Many times, battered women must file for bankruptcy in order to not get evicted from the homes they once shared with their spouses. They may have no financial means because they are not the sole providers of their family's income. When their spouse leaves the home, these women have no choice but to file for bankruptcy in order to delay eviction. We must not roll back provisions that have assisted women who are victims of domestic violence. We must help them reconstruct their life by first making certain they maintain a place to live. Since the Bankruptcy code was enacted, the automatic stay that becomes effective upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition has always prohibited a landlord from evicting a tenant unless the landlord obtains permission from the bankruptcy court. The stay serves several purposes: In chapter 13, a tenant has a right to assume a lease and to cure a default. In chapter 7, the debtor receives a short ``breathing spell''--which is very much needed in domestic violence cases. The right to avoid eviction is extremely important to tenants who would suffer the hardships of moving and having to find new housing and to tenants in rent controlled or rent-subsidized apartments, who would lose valuable property rights. I urge my colleagues to support the Nadler amendment because of provisions that will assist the helpless and the needy as in the case of battered women.

Mr. MEEKS of New York

Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations.

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