Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, I have not had a chance to read the budget. It was just shown to us an hour ago.

Mr. NADLER. I have not read it yet. How do I know?

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. NADLER. In order to produce that travesty of a procedure, the Committee on Rules with malice aforethought yesterday produced the rule that waived the rule of the House that demands that any bill lay on the floor for a day so people can read it and consult with other people and say what do you think and make judgments and perhaps prepare amendments. But because of some presumed emergency, some presumed necessity for the welfare presumably of the country, the Rules of the House that provide for the opportunity for Members of the House to read what is before them, what they are going to be asked to vote for, the Rules of the House that provide an opportunity for the press to tell the people and the country what we are going to vote for so maybe they can call up their Member of the House and say vote yes, vote no, introduce an amendment, that had to be waived because of some emergency or some necessity which we are now told by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules is no emergency and no necessity; the fact that this can be put off until Tuesday will not harm anybody's interest. But they wanted to ram it through with less than an hour for us to look at this. I say, thank God, for the incompetence or the mistake or the inadvertence or whatever it was that will now allow us to read this budget, will allow the people at home to read the budget over a weekend so that people can react intelligently, as the Rules of the House always provided and contemplated that they should. The fact that the Committee on Rules came in and that the majority in this House voted on a party line vote for a rule that waived the ability of anybody who was not privy to private negotiations, of anybody in the public, anybody in the minority side of the House, waived the ability of those people, all of us, to see what we are going to be asked to vote for, to be able to read it to vote on more than a basic outline that maybe our leadership could provide us on an hour's notice, that was what was voted for. That is what was tried to be perpetrated on this House, and the only reason it did not succeed is because somebody made a mistake in filing papers. I say whoever that person was, God bless him. He did a great service to this country.

Mr. NADLER. I will not yield for the moment.

Mr. NADLER. The gentleman has not provided us with 4 days. That is a misstatement of fact. The inadvertence of someone who made a mistake against the will of the gentleman has provided us and the American people with that opportunity. All I am saying is that it is a travesty and it is wrong that the House is run in such a fashion that the only reason we have the ability to read the budget before we vote on it, the only reason that people at home have the ability to take a look at it and read in the paper and suggest to their Congressman how we should vote, is because someone made a mistake and they did not file the papers on time. If the gentleman had his way and done what the gentleman wanted to do, what he tried to do, what he voted to do, nobody would have that opportunity and that is wrong.

Mr. NADLER. I thank you for thanking me for yielding. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, this just illustrates the fraud and the sham that we have been subjected to all of today and tonight, or yesterday and last night and this morning. Because of the incompetence or inadvertence or mistake of somebody in not filing something properly, we do not take up the budget tonight, we wait until Tuesday. Thank God. If it had not been for that mistake, they would have rammed through this budget tonight with no input from the minority and the bipartisanship is a sham and a fraud because the minority had no input into this. Nobody on the minority side would have seen the budget or saw the budget in fact with the numbers until an hour ago. We were then expected to debate and vote it tonight, not having had an opportunity to read it.

Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, I am just about finished now. I have made the points I wanted to make about the sham of the procedure, about the sham of the bipartisanship notion, about the luck of the country in having this inadvertence so that this ramming through of a budget unseen, unread, unknown, could not proceed. But I think we ought to finish this point because whether we do three points one, two, three, or two, three, one, what is the difference? Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. NADLER. You hope not. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. NADLER. And you believe not?

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) has stated that we cannot take up the budget tonight because of this mistake or inadvertence or incompetence by somebody in failing to file these two papers. In your judgment will the failure of our taking up this budget document tonight because of that inadvertence, will that do any danger to the well-being of the United States? The delay until Tuesday?

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. NADLER. Yes or no. I do not have the time to have the whole explanation that is taken from the language of State law. Is causing a miscarriage murder of a two-celled zygote or not under this bill? Yes or no.

Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, he will not give a yes or no answer because he cannot. One last sentence on this whole thing. This bill is not about violence against women. That is why all the violence against women groups are opposed to the bill. This bill is simply to undermine Roe v. Wade, and it will not succeed.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, first let me disabuse the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) of his notion that those of us who voted for the bill to bar capital punishment for pregnant women were recognizing the fetus or the unborn child as a person. I vote against anything to limit capital punishment. I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), I am opposed to capital punishment. I think it is barbaric whether it is against pregnant women or barbaric against nonpregnant women. Mr. Speaker, violence against pregnant women is first and foremost a criminal act of violence against the women that deserves strong preventive measures and stiff punishment. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) referred to the article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that said homicides during pregnancy and the year after are the largest cause of death among women, and they are. Mr. Speaker, it is a disgrace that while these preventable crimes continue to occur, it is a disgrace that Congress fails with this largely symbolic legislation rather than taking affirmative steps to deal with the problem. Why, for example, did the Republican majority fall $209 million short of President Clinton's request last year for full funding of the Violence Against Women Act? Why did the Republicans on the Committee on the Judiciary vote against an amendment for full funding of the Violence Against Women Act? If we are concerned about violence against women and pregnant women and murders of pregnant women, as the Journal of the American Medical Association indicates, that is how to prevent it, by early intervention, by preventing the crime, not by fighting about the legal definition of the fetus from a legal point of view. Are the Members who vote for this legislation today going to join the rest of us in seeking full funding for the Violence Against Women Act in the next fiscal year? Will they fight efforts to zero out for the second year in a row programs authorized by the Committee on the Judiciary last year to prevent such violence? No one who listened to the testimony at our subcommittee could have been left unmoved by the terrible story of the young woman who was murdered by her intimate partner in the eighth month of pregnancy. I think we owe it to her and to the many women like her to ensure that early intervention is available that would prevent us and that States and localities receive the full resources of the Violence Against Women Act to prevent murders like this by intervening before the violence escalates to that level. We should also enact strong penalties, ones which are enforceable, which are not constitutionally suspect, which will not lead to lengthy litigation for these violent crimes. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill opens the door to prosecuting women or restraining them physically for the sake of a fetus. Some courts have already experimented with this approach. Just a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court struck down a practice in the home State of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) where a hospital would give the results of a pregnant woman's blood test to local law enforcement for the purpose of initiating legal action against them if they had used crack. Once we recognize the two-cell zygote or even a blastocyst just implanted in the womb as having the same legal status as a pregnant woman, it would logically follow that the liberty interest of the mother could be restricted to protect the fetus. Do not believe the rhetoric that this is not an abortion bill. Women are already being prosecuted and imprisoned by courts, including courts in the sponsor's own State, in order to protect the fetuses. The whole purpose of Roe v. Wade was to protect the liberty interests of these women. The women who sit in prison today can say what the legal consequences of making fetuses crime victims recognized in law really are. They can say what the real agenda is. The real agenda is to subject women's liberty to the interests of the fetus and to make the fetus accepted as a person, and that is why this is an abortion bill.

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill before us today because it is unnecessary, misguided and facially unconstitutional. The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade clearly said, ``The unborn have never been recognized in the whole sense,'' and concluded that ``person,'' as used in the 14th amendment of the Constitution, does not include the unborn. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) just made clear in his speech a moment ago, as everybody I have heard on the other side has made clear in their speeches, the whole purpose of this bill is precisely to label the unborn fetus or zygote or blastocyst as a person in the whole sense of the word. That is their purpose. Therefore, it is an abortion debate, because if it is murder to cause a miscarriage of a zygote or a fetus, then logically it is murder to perform an abortion. That is why we are debating abortion, and that is why they are debating abortion, whether they admit it or not. Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear a lot today about violence to fetuses, embryos, zygotes, blastocysts. We will hear a lot about horrific acts of violence perpetrated against women at advanced stages of pregnancy, causing injury to the fetus. The sponsors will claim, even though this bill addresses only violence against fetuses, that this bill is really being considered to protect the welfare of these women. We should have no illusions about the purposes of this bill, that it is yet another battle in a war of symbols in the abortion debate in which opponents of a woman's constitutional right to choose attempt to portray fetuses from the earliest moments of conception as children with the same rights as the adult women who are carrying them. The implication is that anyone who does not share the metaphysical slant of the radical antichoice movement that a two-celled zygote is a person on exactly the same basis and with the same rights as a child or adult must secretly favor infanticide. This bill, by making the destruction of a fetus or even a zygote, a separate crime of murder without reference to the actual harm to the pregnant woman speaks volumes about that view. If causing a miscarriage is murder, then by implication so is abortion. Even if the sponsors have papered over this premise with language to the contrary, no one should be under any illusions that this is the real and only purpose of this bill. Let us take the sponsors at their word. In the last Congress, the report of the majority of the Committee on the Judiciary made clear that their concern was that ``except in those States that recognize unborn children as victims of such crimes, injuring or killing an unborn child during the commission of a violent crime has no legal consequence whatsoever,'' and that the bill's purpose was ``to narrow the gap in the law by providing that an individual who kills an unborn child during the commission of certain Federal crimes of violence will be guilty of a separate offense.'' Providing such a separate offense clearly recognizes the fetus as the victim of the violence, a proposition that is at odds with the holding of the Supreme Court in reading the Constitution. In fact, this legislation marks a major departure from Federal law by elevating the legal status of a fetus at all stages of prenatal development to the same as that of the pregnant woman or any other person who is the victim of a crime. This is wrong, Mr. Speaker. It is against the whole scheme of Roe v. Wade, which recognizes a greater ability of the States to regulate, a greater interest in regulation in later stages of pregnancy, precisely because the Constitution recognizes that a fetus is not a full-fledged person from the moment of conception. For anyone still in doubt about the real purpose of the bill, the National Right to Life Committee, in a memo distributed to members of the Committee on the Judiciary, laid it out: They say that such a one-victim amendment, talking about the Lofgren amendment, would codify the fiction that when a criminal assailant injures a mother and kills her unborn child, there has been only a compound injury to the mother but no loss of any human life. The one- victim substitute would also enact the notion that when a criminal assailant kills a pregnant woman, the assailant should be punished once for killing the mother and then again for depriving her of her pregnancy, but if there is only one victim, it shows the difference between us. So the radical antichoice groups acknowledge that the only difference of opinion here is not how much to punish these offenses, because both this bill and the Lofgren substitute would give heavy punishment, although under certain circumstances, the Lofgren substitute would give much heavier punishment than would this bill; the real difference is that this bill recognizes the crime of murder against a fetus or a zygote. The bill is also unclear, as one of the majority's witnesses testified in the committee hearings. Does it cover only an embryo after implantation or at conception? Put another way, is it only murder if you cause the miscarriage of a viable fetus? Or is it also murder if you cause the miscarriage of a not-yet-viable fetus or of a two-celled zygote at the moment of conception? I think the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), should tell us what the bill means. It is a simple question that should have a simple, straightforward answer. Yet I used my entire 5 minutes at the Committee on the Judiciary trying to get an answer from the gentleman from South Carolina. He would not give me an answer. So I will ask him now, yes or no, is it murder to murder a two-celled zygote under this bill or is it not?

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the constitutional amendment before us because it is flawed and fundamentally anti-democratic. As the ranking Democratic member of the subcommittee of jurisdiction over constitutional amendments, I also want to register my strong objection to the manner in which the majority has once again disregarded regular order and proceeded without any hearings or subcommittee consideration. I would hope that our fundamental governmental document would merit more respect and care. H.J. Res. 41 disregards the constitutional principle of majority rule, requiring instead, a two-thirds ``super majority'' vote to raise taxes. The only exceptions to the super majority requirement are: bills that do not increase taxes by more than a ``de minimis amount''; when a declaration of war is in effect; or when the United States is engaged in a ``serious military conflict'' that causes an ``imminent and serious threat to national security.'' James Madison, in The Federalist Papers No. 58, warned against such super majorities, stating that, under such a requirement, ``the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.'' For example, based on data from a 1996 U.S. Census report, Senators representing only 7.3% of the U.S. population could prevent a tax bill from obtaining the two-thirds super majority required to pass. And the bill would require a far larger vote count to raise taxes than to lower taxes. This ``one way ratchet'' mechanism dilutes a member's vote on tax bills that are central and fundamental to the workings of our government. Although the sponsors point out that it is not unprecedented to provide in the Constitution for a two-thirds vote for certain significant actions, such as overriding a presidential veto or congressional impeachments, in the 104th Congress, the then Chairman of this Committee stated ``I am troubled by the concept of divesting a Member of the full import of his or her vote. You are diluting the vote of Members by requiring a supermajority . . . it is a diminution. It is a disparagement. It is a reduction of the impact, the import, of one man, one vote.'' H.J. Res. 41 is designed to benefit the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the average American family and the poor. This constitutional amendment makes it difficult to close unfair tax loopholes that benefit the powerful corporations and wealthiest Americans, requiring a two-thirds supermajority to do so. For example, the amendment makes it difficult to curb ``corporate welfare'' and cut unproductive tax expenditures that grant subsidies to powerful special interests. Yet, according to a recent editorial in the Washington Post, ``when the baby boomers begin to retire . . . the country will be in an era of fiscal strain. To avoid destructive deficits, there will have to be tax increases and/or spending cuts. By making it harder to increase taxes, this amendment would compound the pressure on the major spending programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the rest.'' This is wrong, Mr. Speaker; and I think that we ought not to allow it. This amendment would also endanger important excise taxes that fund public safety and environmental programs whose extension would be subject to a supermajority vote. Many such excise taxes are dedicated to purposes such as transportation trust funds, Superfund, compensation for health damages, taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and pensions, as well as a variety of environmental taxes. The amendment is also vague and runs the risk of transferring authority from the Congress to the courts. For example, the amendment fails to define the term ``internal revenue laws'' to which super majority votes would apply, and also fails to define the term ``de minimis'' to which super majorities do not apply. These vagaries would empower the courts to divine the congressional intent on tax issues that are not the province of the courts, and would bring the courts into fundamental policy disputes that are strictly the province of the Congress. Finally, the majority has recognized just how unworkable a supermajority requirement can be. On at least six separate occasions waived its own House rules requiring such super majorities to increase taxes where it suits their needs. For example, during consideration of the Contract with America Tax Relief Act in 1995 the majority waived the currently necessary three-fifths majority rule needed to raise taxes. This is wrong. This legislation would end the ability of the American people, acting through their representatives in Congress, to decide how they want to raise and spend their own money. The democratic principle of one person, one vote is before us today. I believe that we must protect it for this generation, and for generations to come.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Progressive Caucus Budget. This budget reflects the real priorities of the American people, not big business, wealthy campaign donors, or big oil companies. Working families want us to improve education, health care, and the economy. We respond by spending $110 billion on education--for more teachers, school renovation, and school counselors. We double Head Start and triple funding for new schools. The Progressive Caucus Budget offers the only substantial Medicare prescription drug program--one that includes an 80/20 federal/ beneficiary cost sharing. Our plan would help millions of Americans struggling to pay the high costs of prescription drugs. Our budget is also designed to stimulate the economy. We provide for a $900 billion tax cut, by providing $300 annually to every man, woman, and child in America. Our plan would actually provide more tax relief to more people than the Administration plan. In fact, 80% of the American people would get more money from the Progressive Caucus tax cut plan. Our tax cuts are enough to boost consumer confidence and keep the economy growing, but not so large and so unfair as to force harsh budget cuts or create new deficits. It is time to leave the Reagan/Bush deficit legacy behind once and for all. We also stimulate the economy with funds for new housing construction and badly needed energy assistance. We increase LIHEAP by 400 percent and weatherization programs by 650 percent. We cut nuclear power research and instead direct those funds to clean alternative energy research on wind and solar power development. Lowering energy costs, stimulating the economy, and creating a cleaner environment for our children and grandchildren. This plan may sound radical to some in Congress and especially those conservatives in the Administration, but to the American people its not radical, its common sense. Why not spend the surplus on education, health care, and the economy? Why not? Because President Bush wants to give wealthy individuals $46,000 dollars each instead. What a shame!

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, according to the Source of Criminal Justice Statistics, there were more than 10 million arrests in 1999 alone. Many of these arrests led to criminal convictions and helped make our streets and communities safer. The men and women of law enforcement play a critical role in enforcing our laws and creating a just society. We owe them all a debt of gratitude for their service. However, as any police officer will tell you, sometimes someone is arrested who is not guilty of any crime. It could be a case of mistaken identity or of someone being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Perhaps someone falsely accused an innocent person or simply lied to the police. When the mistake or false accusation is discovered, the innocent person is free to go, but the record of the arrest can haunt him or her for the rest of his or her life. Today, we are announcing the introduction of the Clear Your Good Name Act, which would require the expungement of voided arrest records in order to clear the names of innocent people. The bill defines a ``voided arrest'' as any arrest followed by the release of the person without the filing of formal charges, by dismissal of proceedings against the person arrested, or by a determination that the arrest was without probable cause. The bill would require expungement of voided Federal arrest records and would provide a financial incentive to States to provide for expungement of voided State records. Some States have enacted laws requiring the expungement of voided arrest records, and we want to encourage other States to follow their lead. This bill would make States with expungement statutes eligible to receive a 10-percent increase in crime control funding. Specifically, it would increase the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance programs. For 2001, Congress appropriated $569 million for these programs. If every State passed an expungement law, the cost would be $56 million. These funds are used to reduce drug demand, improve effectiveness of law enforcement operations, and assist citizens in preventing crime. When people are mistakenly arrested and then released after it is determined that they are innocent, they should not have to carry the burden of the mistaken arrest with them for the rest of their lives. We know that arrest records can prejudice opportunities for schooling, employment, professional licenses, and housing. But innocent individuals who have done nothing wrong should not be marked for life. Lt. Manny Gomez is a perfect example of how an innocent person with a voided arrest record was unfairly denied access to a job. Before I tell his story I want to say a few words about Lt. Gomez. He came to my office two years ago to inform me of this problem, and has worked diligently with my staff and with other Members of the House and Senate to correct an injustice. He has been called ``tenacious'' by the NY Daily News, and has been profiled in the New York Times. He has worked with the NY City Council and with the NY State Assembly to pass expungement legislation. He is an example of a crusader who stays focused, works hard, and demands results. We are lucky to have him as a champion of this cause. This is his story. In 1995, Lt. Gomez, two army duffel bags by his side, was approached by police officers in the train station because he happened to fit the description of someone they were looking for. He told them he was not the person, but he went voluntarily to the police station. Within five minutes another officer determined that indeed he was not the person they were looking for, and he was released after he gave the police his name and address. He was unaware that the encounter generated what is called a voided arrest record. Years later when he applied for a job at the police department, he told them--what he believed to be true--that he was never arrested. Unfortunately, the voided record had not been expunged, and the police found the record and accused him of not being truthful. The case of mistaken identity had come back to haunt him, and he was not allowed to become a police officer. He was never aware that he was arrested, so he then began searching for the reason for the record. After he investigated his case and discovered what had happened, he found that there was no law to provide for the expungement of voided arrest records, even if the person was completely innocent of all charges. After a lengthy battle over several years he was finally able to explain the situation to the police department. The police department has since realized that it was in error and will allow him to become a police officer. Unfortunately, not everyone is as capable as Lt. Gomez, and many people are unfairly harmed by voided arrest records that are never expunged. Thus the need for this bill. I am hopeful that with a strong coalition working together we can pass this legislation and enable innocent people to clear their good names and go about their lives free from the harmful effects of a mistaken arrest.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Greek Independence Day. March 25, 2001 marks the 180th anniversary of the beginning of the revolution which freed the Greek people from the Ottoman Empire--a struggle that would last without relief for eight years. For nearly 400 years, Greece remained under the control of this oppressive regime. During this time, they were stripped of all civil rights. Their schools were closed down, their young boys were kidnapped and raised as Muslems to serve in the Turkish army, and millions of their people were executed as the Ottoman Empire sought to maintain control. But the people of Greece persevered. They began secretly educating their children in churches and chapels across the country. By the early 1800's, the Greeks' desire for independence was fueled by this continued education. They became deeply interested in their ancient past and their folk culture. In 1814, Greek merchants in Odessa, Russia, formed the Friendly Society which eventually organized a movement against the Ottoman Turks that led to a Greek revolt. Fighting with what was once described as ``suicidal courage despite meager resources'', the Greeks won their independence after eight years of all-out war and four centuries of oppression. In their fight for independence, the Greeks looked to the American Revolution as their ideal, even translating the Declaration of Independence and using it as their own. In an 1821 address, Greek Commander in Chief Petros Mavromichalis said to American citizens, ``. . . it is in your land that liberty has fixed her abode . . . trusting that in imitating you, we shall imitate our ancestors and be thought worthy of them if we succeed in resembling you . . .'' While the Greeks may have looked to the American Revolution as a blueprint for their own revolution, it is us, the citizens of the United States, who will forever be in debt to the Greeks. For it is they who forged the very notion of democracy. And without that notion, the United States may have never come to be what it is today. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, ``. . . to the ancient Greeks . . . we are all indebted for the light which led ourselves out of Gothic darkness . . .'' It is my hope that the relationship between the people of Greece and the people of America will continue to advance our understanding of democracy and that the hardships experienced by those in both countries will offer hope to all nations struggling for justice today. I urge my colleagues to join me today in commending those of Greek heritage for all they have overcome and for all they have contributed in the hope of making the world around them better for everyone.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Merkaz Bnos High School, in Brooklyn, NY on its selection as a Blue Ribbon School by the United States Department of Education. Merkaz Bnos High School is an all-girls academic institution comprising grades nine through twelve. Its current director, Rabbi Chaim A. Waldman, founded the yeshiva in 1990 under the guiding principle of giving ``every girl the chance to maximize her potential within a nurturing and supportive environment.'' In awarding the Blue Ribbon, the Department of Education recognizes that the Yeshiva has succeeded tremendously in carrying out its mission. The Blue Ribbon School Program was established in 1982 by the U.S. Secretary of Education with three goals in mind. To identify and recognize outstanding public and private school across the United States, to offer a comprehensive framework of key criteria for school effectiveness, and to facilitate the sharing of best practices among schools. Schools selected for recognition have conducted a thorough self-evaluation, involving administrators, teachers, students, parents and community representatives in the completion of their nomination forms. This process included assessing their strengths and weaknesses and developing strategic plans for the future. Merkaz Bnos High School is one of only seventeen private schools selected nationally and the only Yeshiva to be honored with the Blue Ribbon Award, one of the most prestigious awards in the country. In awarding this honor the Department of Education stated the ``yeshiva presents a picture of a school completely focused on helping students achieve high academic standards while developing a strong sense and knowledge base on their Jewish heritage''. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Merkaz Bnos High School on its Blue Ribbon Award and wishing the entire school community--students, teachers, staff members and parents--continued success and many great simchas in the future.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Camp Ramah in the Berkshires. For over 35 years, this prestigious institution has provided hundreds of children in the New York and New Jersey area with the opportunity to explore their creative, academic, athletic and spiritual nature in a nurturing and motivating atmosphere. Located on beautiful Lake Ellis, Camp Ramah in the Berkshires combines educational and recreational activities that leave a lasting impression on its campers, reminding them long after their camp session ends to strive for the best in every aspect of their lives. There are not many places where a child can windsurf, take a computer class, learn how to develop pictures and act in his or her own play all in the same day. But at Camp Ramah in the Berkshires, it happens every day. Taking advantage of their surroundings, campers go on overnight hikes, rock climbing excursions, and sailing trips while also learning about the very environment they are enjoying. Classes on photography, woodworking, drama, music and dance serve as a creative stimulus. The experienced and dedicated staff act as teachers, counselors and role models, helping to shape children into responsible, attentive, caring adults. What further sets apart Camp Ramah in the Berkshires from other summer camps are the Jewish values that pervade the entire camp experience. Campers have 45-minute periods dedicated to Judaic Studies 5 days a week and also undertake week-long projects in Hebrew. Campers join together for Shabbat meals and services, improve their understanding of the Hebrew language, and learn how to prepare traditional Jewish meals. Although a child may leave Camp Ramah in the Berkshires after just a few weeks, the camp experience never leaves the child. By the end of the summer campers have forged new friendships, pushed their limits and return home more confident, more knowledgeable and stronger in their faith. I wish Camp Ramah in the Berkshires continued success and am confident that the future holds nothing but excellence for the institution and its community.