Anthony Weiner

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Dicks, and I also want to extend my gratitude to Mike Stephens of your staff, Deb Weatherly of Mr. Taylor's staff, and Rob Howarth of Mr. Pearce's staff for their cooperation. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following articles for the Record. [From the New York Times, Aug. 4, 2004] Liberty Is Open Again to the Masses, But Just to the Hem of Her Robes (By Carolyn Curiel) For anyone who has ever trekked up the spiral staircase of the Statue of Liberty and peered through the crown's narrow windows, the statue's reopening this week, for the first time since the 9/11 attacks, is bittersweet. Its surrounding grounds and facilities have been spruced up, and members of the National Park Service gamely claim that the statue, an international icon, is better than ever. But there's no way to ignore the loss of what was the main attraction: tourists can no longer knock themselves out by climbing those storied 354 steps. It's perhaps an unavoidable result of the vigilance against terrorism, but a sad one nonetheless. The new tour stops short of the hem of Liberty's robes, at the top of her thick concrete pedestal, in a room that holds only 30 people at a time, or about 3,000 people a day who are quickly shuffled in and out. While a guide gives a short talk and shows a video, tourists are invited to look up at the ceiling, where a few glass panels give a glimpse of a few feet of the interior. Tourists can also step into the open air on a deck that lines the pedestal. That's as good as it gets. And that's only after each visitor is screened twice, by X-ray and metal detectors before boarding a ferry to the monument, and then on the premises by new scanners looking for explosives and narcotics. Throughout the statue's base are monitors showing the routes to the nearest exits in case of an emergency, while across the bottom scrolls a constant message: ``If you see something, say something.'' Oddly enough, this antiterrorism mantra, which appears in bilingual postings in city subways and buses, is only in English at this symbol of America's polyglot immigration. Larry Parkinson, a deputy assistant secretary for law enforcement and security at the Interior Department, says greater access to the statue itself has not been ruled out. But it isn't in the works right now, and the motives for caution seem to stretch beyond security. There is concern about wear and tear on the statue. The people who used to climb the stairs were apparently not unlike those unconscionable climbers of Everest who left behind proof of their presence in the form of garbage--in this case, mostly chewing gum and food refuse. But it's hard to avoid the impression that the officials who spent millions in private and public funds to restore and fortify the statue don't want anyone to mess it up. With the nonprofit charity that has been in charge of soliciting donations under fire for paying its executives too much money, this seems like a time when everyone should be trying to make things as accessible as possible. Obviously, security will have to come first, but visitors to the Statue of Liberty, the symbol of American freedom, shouldn't be constrained forever.

Mr. WEINER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. WEINER. Certainly I will.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 75th anniversary of Floyd Bennett Field. Floyd Bennett Field proudly served as New York City's first municipal airport, opening on May 23, 1931 with modern facilities and strong concrete runways. During the ``Golden Age'' of aviation, this airfield captured the imagination of the public and was the site of many legendary flights with spectators cheering on the accomplishments of aviators named Wiley Post, Howard Hughes, and Amelia Earhart. In 1942 our country was at war, and Floyd Bennett Field was called into duty. Under the U.S. Navy, this airstrip served our country as a Naval Air Station which provided vital support to our troops as it recruited and trained pilots, tested planes, provided cargo transport, and performed sea rescues. Floyd Bennett Field became the first helicopter training facility in the world and is the longest continuously used law enforcement aviation unit in the world, currently housing the New York City Police Department Aviation Unit. In 1972, after years of neglect and in the midst of municipal financial woes, Floyd Bennett Field as turned over to the National Park Service and again set records by becoming the first of the urban national parks. Since then, we have seen a resurgence in activity as the National Park Service finds new ways to invite in the public while preserving the history of the sites and tales of the past. Floyd Bennett Field now hosts an array of activities including hiking, cross- country skiing, camping, field sports, bird-watching, canoeing, and archery. Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I recognize this anniversary milestone and challenge the National Park Service to maintain this field in a way that continues to benefit my constituents and the city of New York.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I won't take the full balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, we create in this bill a port grant program which provides allocation to go to States and localities to take steps to ensure homeland security around ports. But frankly without this amendment, we will not really have any good way of knowing how the moneys are being spent. We have learned through grant programs in other elements of the homeland security bill that we are finding that once States and localities get the money for these grants, they are not spending them in a very wise way. For example, when Converse, Texas, got funds for homeland security, they used it to spend $3,000 for a trailer which was used to transport lawn mowers to lawn mower drag races in that county. We found that in Columbus, Ohio, over $7,000 was used to purchase bullet-proof vests for dogs. In fact, when the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General looked at one State, Indiana, to try find out if the funds were being spent prudently, they found that the county emergency preparedness coordinator had purchased a $30,000 emergency hazardous material trailer truck that he was using as a commuter vehicle back and forth to work. We found out about a lot of these things not because the process was transparent, but because often States and localities bragged about them. My amendment would simply say, once we give the money, we have to hear back from the States and localities how they spent it, allow transparency to be the best disinfectant for boondoggles. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER. Madam Chairman, I would point out to my colleagues that under this legislation we are going to be considering, containers will continue to come under all of the bridges in New York and the New Jersey area unchecked, uninspected. We had an opportunity in this House to have a discussion about whether or not that was a desirable state of affairs, and we chose not to have it. There is no reason, none whatsoever, why we should not have it as the law of the land: any container, of the millions and millions of containers that come here, should not be prescreened in their home country before they arrive here. We chose not to do it. We made a decision. It is not because the technology does not exist. It is not because the desire does not exist. It is not because of anything except our decision in this House not even to have a discussion on it. You know, there are concerns that have been raised. Is the technology ready? The answer is, yes. Is it overly burdensome in cost? The answer is, no. But that is what we have this Chamber for, to have a discussion of these issues. If there is one thing that makes Americans scratch their head about port security, it is, are we leaving ourselves vulnerable to a contaminated container with fissionable material, with nuclear material, with just a bomb in there? And they say, check it. And we are saying here, not only will we not do it, we will not even have a discussion about whether we are going to do it. And I think that is most regrettable. I think we should have had a chance here today to vote up or down, should we screen containers or not? And I think the answer would have been a bipartisan ``yes.'' But then again, the people who control this House say they will not even debate it. So maybe there were going to be people on that side. We have to assume then that they were going to vote ``no.'' But irrespective of that, this is too important an issue at least not to debate in the context of this important bill. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 100th Anniversary of the Baron De Kalb Council No. 1073 of the Knights of Columbus and to offer my thanks for the continual dedication it has shown to the southern Brooklyn communities it serves. The Baron De Kalb Council No. 1073 was founded in 1906 by Ambrose P. Rikeman, who became their first Grand Knight. It was founded on the principals of charity, unity, fraternity and patriotism, principals that have been ingrained in the hearts and minds of its members ever since. The Council is named for Baron Johann De Kalb, a courageous and loyal military leader whose spirit continues to live on in the leaders of this great Council. The Baron De Kalb Council No. 1073 has risen from it's humble beginnings, when a small band of men met in Grand Knight Rikeman's house, to its present day thousands strong membership that meets at the ``Baron-By-The-Sea'', a property purchased by the Council in scenic Sheepshead Bay in 1949. In 1969 members were devastated to learn that a fire had destroyed their ``Baron-By-The-Sea'', but no fire could destroy the members commitment, dedication and desire to reach ever greater achievements for their beloved Council. In 1973 Grand Knight Gus Rogers proudly led his members into the newly built ``Baron-By-the- Sea'', the structure on Nostrand and Emmons Avenues that continues to provide invaluable services to its members and our southern Brooklyn community to this day. Therefore, on Behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I congratulate the Baron De Kalb Council No. 1073 of the Knights of Columbus and all of its past and present members for 100 years of dedication and service to our community.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 100th Anniversary of the Baron De Kalb Council No. 1073 of the Knights of Columbus and to offer my thanks for the continual dedication it has shown to the southern Brooklyn communities it serves. The Baron De Kalb Council No. 1073 was founded in 1906 by Ambrose P. Rikeman, who became their first Grand Knight. It was founded on the principals of charity, unity, fraternity and patriotism, principals that have been ingrained in the hearts and minds of its members ever since. The Council is named for Baron Johann De Kalb, a courageous and loyal military leader whose spirit continues to live on in the leaders of this great Council. The Baron De Kalb Council No. 1073 has risen from its humble beginnings, when a small band of men met in Grand Knight Rikeman's house, to its present day thousands strong membership that meets at the ``Baron-By-The-Sea'', a property purchased by the Council in scenic Sheepshead Bay in 1949. In 1969 members were devastated to learn that a fire had destroyed their ``Baron-By-The-Sea'', but no fire could destroy the members commitment, dedication and desire to reach ever greater achievements for their beloved Council. In 1973 Grand Knight Gus Rogers proudly led his members into the newly built ``Baron-By-the- Sea'', the structure on Nostrand and Emmons Avenues that continues to provide invaluable services to its members and our southern Brooklyn community to this day. Therefore, on Behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I congratulate the Baron De Kalb Council No. 1073 of the Knights of Columbus and all of its past and present members for 100 years of dedication and service to our community.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we lost one of New York City's greatest champions and a pioneer in the world of urban planning when Jane Jacobs died at the age of 89. Millions of people visit New York every year, and many are overwhelmed by its sheer size. The hulking skyscrapers. The bustling crowds. The bright lights. But the dynamism of Manhattan during rush hour is just a piece of the story. A more complete picture of the Big Apple is colored by the scores of local communities that are defined not by big business of the world's economic capital, but rather by the rhythm of parents walking kids to a local elementary school, families attending religious services at a local church or synagogue, and mothers and fathers shopping along the neighborhood shopping strip. While the Manhattan skyline may spring to mind when someone mentions New York, the DNA of the City's everyday life is defined much more by each local neighborhood. Forest Hills in Queens. Sheepshead Bay in Brooklyn. Throgs Neck in the Bronx. Stapleton on Staten Island. Jacobs' beloved West Village in Manhattan. There are so many others. It was Jacobs' masterpiece--``The Death and Life of Great American Cities''--that argued that the health of the City as a whole depended on the vibrancy of its urban neighborhoods. At a time when grand visions of urban renewal were spurring planners to pave over entire communities, Jacobs stood at the forefront of a movement to preserve the City's most fundamental building blocks. And today, as a result in part of Jacobs' efforts to preserve New York's neighborhoods, New York City is as vibrant as ever. We are a magnet for what Richard Florida has termed the ``Creative Class''--the highly-educated, highly-motivated young people who are key to economic growth. And while scholars like Robert Putnam worry about the deterioration of social capital--afraid that Americans are interacting less and more likely to ``bowl alone''--the neighborhoods of New York City continue to have dynamic communities that interact on the street with a swirl of new and old faces. In fact, today, Jacobs' successes have left New Yorkers with a new set of challenges. Because so many people want to live in New York, property values have skyrocketed, and tax bills along with them. Because so many people are using our public transportation systems to get to work, we're forced to invest in building new infrastructure. Because so many young people want to raise families in the five boroughs, we are forced to foot the bill for building more schools. Our new burden in New York is to manage the success of Jane Jacobs' vision of a vibrant, dense, growing, exciting city. And for that, we owe Jane Jacobs a debt of gratitude.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of a great civic and community leader, Paula Whitney, upon her retirement as President of the Mill Basin Civic Association. Paula Whitney is a lifetime resident of the Mill Basin community and can trace her roots back to one of the first families to establish a residence in the area. She has a deep love for this close knit Brooklyn community and has dedicated a large part of her time and energy to ensuring the opportunities provided to her and her family over the years are preserved and fortified for future community residents. Paula Whitney joined the Mill Basin Civic Association in 1979 and held several offices before being elected president in 1989. As president, Paula Whitney has spearheaded many campaigns to improve the Mill Basin community and keep it family friendly. She has brought many problems that otherwise might be swept under a rug into the light of day and had an uncanny ability to demand the proper amount of attention and respect from elected officials, our local police precinct and our local schools. Thanks in large part to Paula Whitney's persistence and hard work, no issue raised at her meetings ever went unanswered. Paula Whitney taught civic responsibility by example, and her two children, Michael Francis and Jeanne Marie, learned it well. Jeanne serves on the civics' Board of Directors. Paula is married to Allan Whitney, a civic leader in his own right, who serves as the Third Vice President. Paula's dedication to our community runs deeper than devoting herself to just one organization. She has represented her Mill Basin community at School Board meetings, served as a former Board Member of the Mill Bergen Chemical People Task Force, as a member of the Flatlands Volunteer Ambulance Corps, and as a member of Community Board 18, where she is chairperson of the Libraries Committee. Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I congratulate Paula Whitney upon the completion of her service as president of the Mill Basin Civic Association and thank her for her many years of hard work on behalf of my constituents and the City of New York.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. The Judiciary Committee, I think, has been a font of some of the legislation I find most troubling in the last session. But this is a moment that I want to join with my colleagues in commending the chairman for doing what, frankly, we should have down a long time ago. Before Mr. Sensenbrenner took over the committee, it was customary for us to avoid the tough issues that went into reauthorization. But Mr. Sensenbrenner has been fair and honorable in trying to work out some of these thorny issues, and I think we have shown that we can work together to come up with an initiative that not only managed to bring us together but did that almost impossible thing, which was force the other body to finally act on some of these things as well. A couple of programs in particular that are worth noting: For the first time since 2000, we are reauthorizing the COPS program. More than 117,000 cops are on the beat in small towns and big cities throughout this country, sheriffs departments, major police departments. This bill not only reauthorizes but recognizes some of the criticisms of the first bill, makes the money more flexible, lets police departments use it for the things they need the most, recognizes the need to pay some of the payroll for terrorism cops in particular since September 11. This finally closes the loophole in the availability of counterfeit police and uniform badges. After years of being warned of the loopholes that exist, for the first time under this legislation, it will be illegal to sell or to transfer a counterfeit badge for any reason except for use in a theatrical production or for legitimate law enforcement purposes. Also in this legislation, we, again, for the third time, push the ball down the field on approving the use of DNA technology. We allow those who are acquitted to expunge their samples. DNA funding that is allocated can be used for laboratories, which it has not been in the past. Aliens in detention, samples can be collected from them. And perhaps the most important thing, the Federal statute of limitations has been lifted because DNA evidence very often sits on the shelves for years and years and years without being associated with an individual. That statute of limitations is going to be expiring. I just want to say, again, I commend Mr. Conyers and Mr. Sensenbrenner for a bill that does a great deal. It waited until the last moment, but it was well worth the wait, and I thank the gentlemen.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Nevada and the gentlewoman from Virginia. The bottom line is there was a good-faith effort made by the gentleman from New York to change ``recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas'' to ``the symbols of Christmas and Chanukah,'' and you said no. It was an attempt to change ``strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas'' to ``ban references to Christmas and Kwanzaa,'' and you said no. It was a chance to take this and put it into the words that the gentleman from Virginia, the gentlewoman from Florida earlier articulated, and the gentlewoman who is the sponsor says that she intends. The question must be, why? For someone who does not celebrate Christmas, the question looms: Why? Why not say to someone who wants to make this inclusive that, indeed, we are going to make it inclusive? The symbols of Chanukah are not valuable? Sure, they are, I think. The symbols of Kwanzaa are not valuable to some? Sure, they are. I cannot imagine why the gentlewoman who is the sponsor of this, who says that she speaks from a sense of inclusion, would not want to include those. Are those not worthy of being protected? What is the message that is being sent? The gentleman from Nevada articulated his support. He perhaps should persuade his colleague to offer that UC.

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I have no question about the gentleman's values or his intent. Is there any element of this bill that if we substituted ``Chanukah,'' which you mentioned, recognizing the importance of the symbols and traditions of Chanukah, would you find that offensive in any way?

Mr. WEINER. It is exactly the place to debate. We are on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Mr. WEINER. Would you find anything offensive about recognizing the importance of the symbols and traditions of Diwali, the Indian New Year for Indian Americans?

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, he controls the time. He has yielded to me for a question, and now I am asking it.

Mr. WEINER. Will the gentleman yield further for another question?

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for his support. For the balance my time here, I do want to point out one other provision that has gone largely unnoticed, but is a very important part of this bill. I have beside me, and it is difficult to read from afar and, frankly, it is difficult to even read from up close, a Web site that distributes the personal information about judges, police officers, elected officials, and the like. This Web site, and we have obviously obscured the URL, goes so far as to talk about the comings and goings of undercover officers in New York City. It provides sensitive details of about 79 different officers, things such as what type of car they drive, things about what the comings and goings of their families are, personal habits. This is an example where we find the matrix, or perhaps I would call it the conflict, of the virtues of the Internet, how it is a place to bring information far and wide and the ability to use the Internet for what is in this case a very pernicious, mean- spirited, and perhaps deadly cause. We know from the examples we have had judges' families stalked based on information the criminals were able to find on the Internet. In this bill we essentially incorporate H.R. 1710, the Internet Police Protection Act, that I offered. It becomes section 18 of this bill. What it says is there is a lot of publicly accessible information about judges; there is a lot of publicly accessible information about police officers. If someone wants to, if they really want to harass or harm a police officer or a judge, we should not allow the Internet to be used as a repository for information like that. I am someone who spends a great deal of time as a member of the Judiciary Committee and a Member of this House fighting for the rights of people to free speech. I know there are going to be things on the Internet that are troubling to us, and we are always going to be in a tug and a push to try to figure out where we draw the line. In this case, the line clearly gets drawn in the following place: if people are going to use the Internet to harass, intimidate, or harm law enforcement personnel, to harm court officers, to harm judges, then they should be illegal. This makes the test very simple. If they simply compile the database and a police officer's name happens to be on it with no intention of ill will, then obviously this would not make that illegal. But if it is clear that they are compiling a Web site like this one, which starts out, I should point out, the very first line says: ``Welcome to this legal, noncriminal Web site which provides publicly available information about NYPD, New York City Police Department, officers. This page is this Web site's most visited page,'' and it goes on to talk about how the information that was gathered was gathered in a lawful way. That is probably right. But it should be illegal. This is just the type of harassment tool, and perhaps even worse, that we need to keep off of the Internet. I also draw another distinction, Mr. Chairman. When one is an elected official, a public official, their comings and goings are going to be more public than others. That is part of the cost of doing business. Any information about where a Congressman shows up obviously is not going to be covered by this legislation. But if one is a police officer, if one is an undercover police officer, imagine what it feels like to go home after a hard day at work dealing with some very bad people and find information about their comings and goings posted on a Web page. This bill, the Court Protection Act, is going to make that illegal, as it should. And there may be tests that we have to figure out where the line gets drawn. Courts have come down in different places, but one thing we know: threatening speech is not protected speech. Speech that endangers someone's livelihood, endangers someone's life is not protected speech, and this provision in the Court Security Act will make that abundantly clear. I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the Weiner amendment.

Mr. WEINER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a technical amendment that fixes an oversight in the bill that left out four programs that would be helpful for courts, court officers, and court security personnel to take advantage of: the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant program; the Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Discretionary Grant program; the Assistance for Children's Justice Act, CJA, grants; and State Justice Statistics program for Statistical Analysis Centers. These four grant programs, I think, the authors of the bill, Mr. Gohmert, myself and members of the committee, had intended to be available to courts as a result of this bill, and this amendment would include those.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member and the chairman. I offer my gratitude to both of them for the hard work they have done in, once again, trying to fit many programs into a very small package. There is a mystery buried deep in this bill. This bill marks the end, the official end, of the COPS program. We know that the chairman and ranking member were not the ones that led to its demise. In fact, over the last several years, there has been an effort to, despite the fact that it has not been reauthorized, keep it going. Now, we know that the COPS program ends in this bill, but the question is why. Let us try to figure out what the motive is. Well, could it be that it is not distributed evenly, the police officers, the over 120,000 police officers hired in the bill? This is an example of just some of the cities that have had officers hired under the COPS program. This is perhaps the most democratic, with a small ``d'', bill you can imagine, COPS in small police departments in rural areas and large big cities. Perhaps it was that the COPS program was eliminated because it was not working. Well, that certainly was not the case. Crime has been reduced every year since the COPS program was put into place. The GAO did a study looking at the correlation between COPS hiring and the reduction in crimes and concluded that over a quarter of a million indexed crimes were not committed because of the COPS program. Maybe it is because the program is no longer needed. Well, the former head of the Department of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, once famously said that homeland security starts in our hometown. Everyone is saying we need more and more first responders, not fewer. So the COPS program in this bill meets its demise, a successful program. We do not quite know why it is ending. We are grateful to the chairman and ranking member for having it go on this long. But we do have a chance to resuscitate it. The House has passed the reauthorization of the Justice Department bill. We are awaiting action in the Senate. In that bill we authorized the COPS program to live to see another day. We have bipartisan support from Chairman Sensenbrenner, Democrats and Republicans joining together to try to make the COPS program come back to life. I would urge my colleagues to think about whether or not at this time of heightened national security concern, we want the COPS program to end.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, despite the divisiveness of the term ``faith-based,'' most Americans are united in their support of religious organizations. Across the country, these organizations do great work, feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, and in many cases providing affordable housing to those most in need. That's why it's surprising that the Republicans are using an otherwise worthy effort to reform Government Sponsored Enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to throw a wrench in the relationship between government and the religious community. The Affordable Housing Fund created by the bill will commit 5 percent of Fannie and Freddie profits toward a grant program to build, maintain, and rehabilitate housing for low-income families. Yet language passed in the Managers Amendment stops that money from flowing to faith-based organizations. That amounts to $500 million a year that Republicans don't believe should go to organizations like Catholic Charities. Today in Brooklyn and Queens alone Catholic Charities operates 3,000 units of affordable housing including 2,090 units for senior citizens, 480 units of family housing and 377 units of supportive housing for formerly homeless individuals. But the Church, the largest non-profit provider of low income housing in Brooklyn and Queens, will be shut out of the new program. Faith should never be used to divide an electorate or play a political game. I believe that is exactly what Republicans have done in order to take the teeth out of a program designed to help those most in need. We should all embrace the principle of Tikkun Olam which says that those who have a little more, should do a little more. That is exactly what the Affordable Housing Fund would have allowed faith-based organizations to do in partnership with the Federal Government until Republicans inserted their limiting provisions. In the words of the Most Rev. Nicholas DiMarzio, Bishop of Brooklyn, in a letter to the Speaker dated October 3, ``There are ample ways to write safeguards into the legislation to prevent the diversion of affordable housing funds to uses other than what they are intended without requiring recipients to forego their constitutionally protected rights as a condition for participating in Affordable Housing Fund programs.'' I include the Bishop's letter for the Record. Department of Social Development and World Peace, Washington, DC, October 3, 2005. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: I write as Chairman of the Domestic Policy Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to urge you to retain the Affordable Housing Fund as part of the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 (H.R. 1461) and bring the bill to a vote forthwith. The Catholic Bishops have historically urged the federal government to help meet our nation's promise of a decent home for every American family, especially those families with extremely low incomes. As I noted in my June 10 letter to the House of Representatives, the Catholic Community--through our Charities agencies, dioceses, and parishes--serves tens of thousands of men, women, and children who struggle to maintain adequate housing. Besides sheltering homeless people who turn to us for help, we have built, and continue to maintain, thousands of affordable housing units. All of these experiences have demonstrated to us how inadequate, substandard housing hurts human life, undermines families, destroys communities, and weakens the social fabric of our nation. Despite our efforts--and the efforts of so many others--there just is not enough affordable housing available. Proposals that would limit eligible recipients to organizations that have as their primary purpose the provision of affordable housing would effectively prevent Catholic dioceses, parishes and Catholic Charities agencies from participating in Affordable Housing Fund programs. Similarly, proposals that would prohibit recipients from engaging in voter registration and lobbying activities with their own funds during the period they are utilizing affordable housing funds would force Catholic agencies to choose between participating in Affordable Housing Fund programs or engaging in constitutionally protected voter registration and lobbying activities with their own funds. I urge you to oppose inclusion of these kinds of unnecessary limitations and prohibitions in H.R. 1461 as it moves to the House floor for a vote. There are ample ways to write safeguards into the legislation to prevent the diversion of affordable housing funds to uses other than what they are intended without requiring recipients to forego their constitutionally protected rights as a condition for participating in Affordable Housing Fund programs. The Bishops' statement, Putting Children and Families First, notes: ``Many families cannot find or afford decent housing, or must spend so much of their income for shelter that they forego other necessities, such as food and medicine.... [The Catholic bishops] support housing policies which seek to preserve and increase the supply of affordable housing and help families pay for it.'' We must put in place a sustainable source of funds to build affordable housing and this new fund would do that. As I said in my June letter, this legislation presents Congress with a genuine opportunity to make the shelter needs of extremely low-income families a national priority. I believe that such families who need housing the most should be targeted to receive these limited funds. With every best wish, I am, Sincerely, Most Rev. Nicholas DiMarzio, PhD, DD Bishop of Brooklyn, Chairman, Domestic Policy Committee, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.