Anthony Weiner

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this additional time, and I am surprised that such an able lawyer would be unwilling to engage in a debate on his time, but I will take 30 seconds simply to rebut what the gentleman said. In every one of those cases on the wheel of rhetoric that the gentleman put up, those that were found guilty, those who were found to be responsible, those who were found to be culpable of doing harmful things to our community admitted it, paid a fine, paid a penalty, that was approved by a judge, and that is the fact; that the gentleman took cases of people who admitted with their actions there was wrongdoing involved. And if they had not been caught by this system, I ask the gentleman, what system would they be caught by?

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. And let me just reiterate, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps I have a less cynical perspective than my colleague does. I think something good is coming out of this in that our generation is remembering again that there was a time in this country, in the early to mid-1930s, where we had a poverty rate among seniors that was approaching 40 percent; that we had just come through the tremors of the Great Depression that had left, frankly, our economy in a shambles, and there were certain things we did that made fundamental sense that have endured throughout time. People sometimes do not understand what the Social Security is and what it is supposed to be. But if we can start to animate a discussion in this country among people of all generations about why this is important and why we should not be so sanguine about the idea that we are paying for a lot of this by borrowing out of Social Security today. If the President was so concerned about how solid the Social Security would be, one thing he could do is stop borrowing from that trust fund today. So I think, frankly, having this discussion is going to turn out to be very salutary if we prevail. If we do not prevail, and if the President is successful in pulling hundreds of millions of dollars out of the Social Security system, we are quite literally, our generation, will be the one to live to regret it first. Every other generation since the 1930s, our parents and grandparents, have benefited from this program, and we are the ones that will wind up having to fix it. Mr. Speaker, so much of what we do around here, unfortunately, is going to be left to others; my colleague's young child is going to be left to clean up the mess being created by the 107th, 108th Congress; and it is very important that we keep doing this. It is also important that people continue to send their e-mails to 30somethingdems@mail.house.gov, because for every letter that we get, there is evidence that there are 100 or 200 that we are not actually receiving. One final point on this: for those of a generation who are not yet ready to get Social Security, this is an economic issue for you today, but it is also an economic issue for you tomorrow. Just the same way you would be smart in investing in your 401(k), we should be smart about legislating.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, it is national defense and it is antiterrorism programs. It is all of the things that all of us fight tooth and nail for here every year. I would argue that interest on the national debt that we are racking up every year is an expenditure that we get no value for. It is essentially foreign aid is what it really is because so much of these payments are going overseas because so much of our debt is held by overseas entities, but we do not get anything for that. You cannot go back to your district and say now we have 20 percent of the budget is going to just make these payments. Let us not forget something. The Social Security program is not supposed to be a profit retirement plan. The President is absolutely right. If we invested since 1935 every dollar in the stock market, we would have a lot more money in the trust fund for sure. The problem is the line would not go like this. It would go like this. The program was intended to be fundamentally an antipoverty program, a safety net program. It is a program that is there for everyone, and also, the idea you are getting out a lot more than when you put in. The President says that it is a sign that the program is broken. No. That is the way it was created because we assume that from generation to generation, just as your generation did for us, we would be creating a stronger economy with more coming into the Social Security program. He said there are so many fewer children supporting the parents. Yeah, but we are making a lot more. Thank goodness that economic growth continues growing which is even more preposterous, that when the budget actuaries concluded we are going to start going broke in the year 2042, they based it on a presumption that for the first time we are going to have a 20-year-period where we start going in the other direction. Some optimistic projection. I keep hearing about the President being the ultimate optimist. Well, not if you believe the Social Security actuaries. So the idea that somehow we get some value by doing this, I defy my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that if you want to pay for homeland security, which I do, if you want to pay for national defense, which I do, and if you want to pay for farm subsidies, as many of you do, we do not actually have farms in Brooklyn, but then you cannot do any of those things if you are paying that much in interest.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I tell my colleagues that the ultimate decider of this issue is not going to be the three of us. The ultimate decider will be the numbers of people sending e-mails to 30somethingdems@mail.house.gov and who contact their elected officials who say, before you go anywhere on this, you should all understand there are some issues that still unify a country that is 50-50, and Social Security is one of them. The endearing beauty of the Social Security system is that across demographic lines, across political lines in all parts of this country, just about every American has a story within their family about how the Social Security has worked for them. Now, some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are famous for standing up in March against something and then meekly, no pun intended, in June, voting for it. We saw that with the Medicaid bill. But at the end of the day, if we get a sufficient number of calls or e-mails to 30somethingdems@mail.house.gov, we are going to have the ability to say, you know what, this is pure politics now. And if we let that voice go out there that this is not going to be touched, we will eventually win enough of them. And we will do this the old-fashioned way. There will be a core on the other side of the aisle that says we are unprepared. Now, admittedly, their ancestors in the Republican Party did not cast a single vote for this in 1935 either, so I am not so sure that they have the ownership that we do of it. And we are proud this is a Democratic legacy program, but it is also one that has helped millions and millions and millions of Republican families in suburban areas and rural areas and everywhere else. So the die has not been cast. This is ultimately going to be up to the people of the United States of America. And they are going to see, just like they got sold a pig in a poke with the Medicare bill, we are not going to let that happen with this as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. I consider myself an honorary member of the 30-something Group now that I have passed 40. I am here strictly as a visitor. But I was taken by some of the discussion that was going on here on the floor, and I want to make one philosophical point and one economic point to essentially affirm some of the things that the gentlemen were saying. First of all, there is a great deal of discussion inherent in the President's debates that seeks to drive a wedge between two generations. The beauty of the Social Security program is it was a classic generational compact. One generation supports the other. And the President when he embarked on his campaign across the country kept saying, well, seniors, you do not need to worry about this. We are not touching your benefits. This is entirely about the next generations. This is the first time in my memory, and we, the three of us, have not been around as long as some other Members of this august body, that you did not hear the President seeking to unify the country around an agenda. You heard him trying to divide the country to perpetuate an agenda, and I think that most Americans realize, whether they be younger or older, that at the end of the day the Social Security program has worked exactly as it was intended since the moment it was passed. Sometimes you build up large surpluses and you spend them down as the next generation retires. Sometimes you have gifts, sometimes you have ebbs and flows, and there has been inherent in this debate a certain sense of it is about me now, rather than the idea that we are going to be there for the next generation the same way they were there for us. If I could just make an economic point based on the charts that you have been showing, some people say and even some economists say, well, deficits really do not matter. There are a lot of people in this matter who are in the deficits-do-not-matter school. Well, that may have been true in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s because, frankly, there was no place else on Earth for someone to invest their money except in U.S. dollars. If you ran up a big deficit, it did not matter. It is not going to stop someone from coming in here and saying, well, if you are the Chinese, as my colleague so aptly put, if we are the Saudis or Egyptians, if we want to put our money someplace safe, we have to buy Treasury bills and invest in the economy, we have no other choice. What choice do we have? There is no other economy in the world that can sustain it. Well, for the first time the Euro has now become a reserve currency of the world that is competing with us. So what does this mean to the average New Yorker, the average person who lives in Ohio or Florida? What it means is that we, the Federal Government, are going to have to compete with Europe in terms of who is going to have the higher interest rate. What does that mean? That means that not only are T- bills going to be higher, your interest rates on our credit cards is going to be higher. Your interest on your bank loans is going to be higher. Your interest rate on your mortgage is going to be higher. If you think this only matters to you, you are 30 years from retiring or getting a Social Security check today, you are completely wrong. If we keep going on this path, what we are going to be doing is essentially competing with ourselves for interest, and it is going to wind up costing average Americans hundreds and hundred of dollars each month on their dollars. If we have one good thing going for us in the last couple of years, it is low interest rates. If it were not for low interest rates driving demand for homes and cars, this economy would be in a worse rut than it has been in the last several years, and we are putting that at risk, and that is why deficits matter. Deficits matter for another reason. Those of us in this House, and I think the three of us are in this crowd, who are true conservatives when it comes to money, we look at the idea of being a conservative person is to say, look, I derive certain debts, I rack up certain debts, whether I borrow money or I spend freely, it is my obligation to be responsible for those things. Anyone who sits in this Chamber, who campaigns as a fiscal conservative, who supports the continuation of that chart that is to your right is simply not a conservative. You cannot legitimately make that claim. I believe that in the years that you refer to when Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan got together and did things, frankly sometimes did a half-a-loaf thing that neither side was completely happy about, the one thing they did have was this intellectual consistency about saying if we are going to spend it, we are going to pay for it; if we are going to augment the Department of Defense, we are going to do the best we can to pay for it. We even reached a moment in this House when our deficits were at the paltry amount of $250- or $260 billion, where we said we are going to pass laws to restrict ourselves. The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act said you cannot spend a single dime unless you pay as you go. A lot of people said it was really bad because it hurt some programs more than others, but at least it was an acknowledgment in this House, an acknowledgment that the government has, at the end of the day, to be responsible for the deficit. Today, the philosophy is entirely different. Today, it is not our problem, which brings us back to the original problem, that we have now started to say it is all about us, it is all about this moment in time, not thinking at all about the next generation, not thinking at all about the past generation. That is why deficits matter. That is why the President's plan matters to wherever you are on the demographic scale, this is an issue that matters to all Americans. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) because he has been out here many times talking about this. People have been sending e-mails and saying we get it. That is where fundamentally the President has to understand. This is not a matter of going out and doing a campaign swing like you mentioned. This is a matter that fundamentally people understand it is our obligation, both in the Social Security system and fundamentally to our children, that we do not continue exacerbating that problem.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives voted to commend the Palestinians for holding free elections on January 9, 2005. We should congratulate the countless Palestinians who participated nonviolently in the historic event. However, we must also hold the newly elected President and the entire Palestinian Authority accountable for publicly rebuking and bringing an end to terror and incitement. Until violence has ended, the U.S. should withhold its funding. U.S. taxpayers should know that their money is being spent fighting terror, not supporting it. During the last 4 years, the Palestinian Authority failed to halt more than 22,000 attacks that killed over 1,030 Israelis. Yet, at the same time the United States gave more than $612 million in aid to the West Bank and Gaza. That's more U.S. aid to the Palestinians than in the previous 25 years combined. Sadly, the recent elections have not produced a true disarming of the terrorists. In the 1 week following Abbas' election, terror attacks left 8 Israelis dead and prompted Israel's Prime Minister to express his outrage at the new Palestinian leadership for ``not lifting a finger'' to stop violent attacks. Just yesterday, the Jewish residents of Gush Katif were terrorized by mortar fire and a 50 kilogram explosive device was uncovered by the Israeli army at a border crossing in the Gaza Strip. For many, the continuing violence is no surprise given Abbas' election campaign, in which he not only referred to Israel as ``the Zionist enemy,'' but said he would protect Palestinian terror groups that use rockets and other means to attack innocent Israelis. Yesterday, Israeli intelligence chief Aharon Ze'evi confirmed that ``the preparations for terror acts continue'' among senior Hezbollah and Hamas leaders. And last week, Hamas won 77 council seats in a landslide victory in Gaza municipal elections. The terror group now controls 7 out of the 10 councils in which elections were held. In the wake of the elections, Israeli minister Natan Sharansky has unveiled a report documenting Palestinian incitement ``of virulent hatred of Jews and Israel that mandates the killing of Jews as a religious obligation.'' These recent events deserve condemnation. While the election of a Palestinian Prime Minister may be a rare experience, the historic event worth celebrating will be a true end to Palestinian terror. Since Arafat was appointed chairman of the PLO in February 1969, more than 36 years of Palestinian terror have plagued Israelis and Palestinians alike. Violence has been the one constant, and the United States should wait until Palestinian terror ends before commending or funding an apparatus of terror.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, when residents of Marine Park were being threatened by the New York City Department of Transportation because Parks Department trees were tearing up their sidewalks, Carmine Carro confronted city hall. When two women from Marine Park broke the gender barrier by competing in a Citywide boccie tournament, Carmine Carro cheered them on. When vandals sprayed racist graffiti on PS 207 in Marine Park, Carmine Carro donated all the paint and supplies the students needed to whitewash the wall. When Carmine passed away earlier this week, New York lost a classic. Carmine was an old school New Yorker, devoted to his community, Marine Park, and a dogged advocate for his neighbors. Carmine moved to Marine Park in the 1960s, and rose to become president of the Marine Park Civic Association--one of the oldest civic associations in New York City. Under Carmine, the MPCA built on its long tradition of making Marine Park one of the most vibrant neighborhoods in Brooklyn. Carmine worked every year to organize a Halloween walk attended by as many as 20,000 community members. He served as Park Warden for Marine Park for five years. He was a member of the local school board and vice-chairman of Community Board 18. Carmine Carro was the Mayor of Marine Park. He represented the best of what New York can be. He will be sorely missed.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, today we commemorate the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. It is a powerful and important reminder of terror, genocide, and the Holocaust. More than 1.5 million prisoners--most of them Jews--perished in gas chambers or died of starvation and disease at Auschwitz. Today it is important to remember those crimes against humanity. We must recall those whose lives were lost to the savagery of fascism, racism, and bigotry. We must never forget them. We must also remember the heroes of that war who helped save lives by risking their own. On this 60th anniversary, we reflect back, but we also look ahead. We mark this date with a pledge to the living. We must keep the stories of the survivors--our siblings, parents, and grandparents--alive. We must remain steadfast in our dedication to eliminating anti-Semitism in every country and here at home. We must ensure that all Jews have a secure homeland in the State of Israel to seek refuge. And we must act to stop genocide--in Sudan or anywhere else. The murder of innocent people must never happen again.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn the loss of a legend. Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm was a trailblazer whose story represents the best of America, and the essence of the New York experience. She was the first of four girls born to two immigrants--one Barbadian, the other Guyanese--who instilled in her a lifelong devotion to the value of a good education. She graduated cum laude from Brooklyn College, and went onto earn a master's degree at Columbia. During the 1950s, she directed a day care center in Brooklyn, and worked as an educational consultant for New York City. Her work in the community launched her political career, and she was elected to the New York State Assembly in 1964. In 1968, she was elected to Congress as the first African-American woman to serve in the House of Representatives. She went on to become a founding member of both the National Organization for Women, the National Women's Political Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus. And as always, she devoted her energies to education, promoting programs like Title IX and early childhood education. She served seven terms in Congress, in midst of it all becoming the first African-American, of either gender, to run a large-scale campaign to become the presidential candidate of one of the major political parties. A proud and independent voice, Shirley Chisholm was a New York original. She will be sorely missed.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, since September 11th, 2001, this nation has engaged in a debate over how best to balance national security with civil liberties. ``They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.'' Those words are as true today as they were when Ben Franklin said them at the dawn of American democracy. It was in that spirit that a patriotic New Yorker named Bob Pargament designed the ``Constitution Flag.'' The new symbol, an American Flag with the Constitution superimposed in the outline of the United States, reminds us never to undercut the freedoms guaranteed to each individual in the Constitution. While nothing can ever replace our beloved ``Old Glory,'' this new emblem is currently flying in homes, city and town halls, and law classrooms across the country. It is on display at the American Library Association's Chicago headquarters and the city of Mount Vernon, NY has officially adopted the flag as the city's symbol. As we in Congress continue to struggle with ways to keep Americans safe, we should honor those who are working to highlight the civil liberties at the foundation of our democracy. I urge my colleagues to join me in embracing the Constitution Flag as an invaluable reminder of what keeps American strong.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, each year, about 33,000 Americans die from prostate cancer and 256,000 are diagnosed for the first time. Aside from lung cancer, the disease kills more men than any other form of cancer. On November 8, 1999, Ed Randall, one of the country's foremost baseball authorities, was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Early detection and the care of doctors like Nicholas Romas at St. Luke's- Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York City saved Ed's life. In late 2002, Ed founded Bat for the Cure, a non-profit charity dedicated to the eradication of prostate cancer. With its prominent board of directors, including Bob Costas, Mario Cuomo, Len Elmore, Kathy Giusti and John Hennessy III, the charity has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the disease. The organization has also enlisted well-known sports stars who are joining in the fight, such as Dustin Baker, Frank Robinson, Tom McCraw, Bob Watson, Don Baylor, Dave Winfield, and Rafael Palmeiro. Many of these celebrities have personal experiences with the tragedy of cancer. Fortunately, prostate cancer is one of the slowest growing cancers, so proper detection and treatment can save lives. With Bat for the Cure's support, St. Luke's-Roosevelt, the hospital that saved Ed Randall's life, is now helping many other cancer patients become survivors. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to make prostate cancer research and early detection a national health care priority. Congress should act without delay to double prostate cancer research funding at the National Institutes of Health, fully fund the National Cancer Institute, and save prostate cancer research at the Veteran's Administration.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, each year, about 33,000 Americans die from prostate cancer and 256,000 are diagnosed for the first time. Aside from lung cancer, the disease kills more men than any other form of cancer. On November 8, 1999, Ed Rendell, one of the country's foremost baseball authorities, was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Early detection and the care of doctors like Nicholas Romas at St. Luke's- Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York City saved Ed's life. In late 2002, Ed founded Bat for the Cure, a non-profit charity dedicated to the eradication of prostate cancer. With its prominent Board of Directors, including Bob Costas, Mario Cuomo, Len Elmore, Kathy Giusti and John Hennessy III, the charity has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the disease. The organization has also enlisted well-known sports stars who are joining in the fight, such as Dustin Baker, Frank Robinson, Tom McCraw, Bob Watson, Don Baylor, Dave Winfield, and Rafael Palmeiro. Many of these celebrities have personal experiences with the tragedy of cancer. Fortunately, prostate cancer is one of the slowest growing cancers, so proper detection and treatment can save lives. With Bat for the Cure's support, St. Luke's-Roosevelt, the hospital that saved Ed Randell's life, is now helping many other cancer patients become survivors. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to make prostate cancer research and early detection a national health care priority. Congress should act without delay to double prostate cancer research funding at the National Institute of Health, fully fund the National Cancer Institute, and save prostate cancer research at the Veterans' Administration.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, it has been 40 years since Congress passed the 1964 National Wilderness Act, which has allowed parts of public land to be protected by law for future generations. It might surprise some to know that this groundbreaking act of legislation was derived in part from the work of a New York City resident, David McClure, who chaired the Committee on Forest Preservation at the state constitutional convention in Albany in 1894. McClure helped draft an article, which ensured that certain state land would remain ``forever wild.'' Those words, adopted by the convention and later approved by the voters, have never been altered and remain in effect for the 3-million acre New York State forest preserve in the Adirondack and Catskill parks. This visionary accomplishment was the inspiration for those who drafted the 1964 Wilderness Act. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a New York City Proclamation honoring the 40th Anniversary of the Wilderness Act and designating September 2004, in New York City, as National Wilderness Act Month. Proclamation Whereas: While we thrive in a concrete jungle, New Yorkers are not blind to the necessity of forest preservation. In fact, our urban sensibility allows us a special appreciation for green spaces and wilderness. Whereas: It has been forty years since Congress passed the 1964 National Wilderness Act, which has allowed a small percentage of the nation's public lands to be protected by law for future generations. It might surprise some to know that this groundbreaking act of legislation was derived in part from the work of a New York City resident, David McClure, who chaired the Committee on Forest Preservation at the State Constitutional Convention in Albany in 1894. He helped draft an article that ensured that State land known as the Forest Preserve in the Adirondacks and Catskills would remain ``forever wild.'' Adopted by the convention and later approved by the voters, the words of Article 14, Section 1 of the State Constitution have never been altered, and remain in effect for the three million-acre New York State Forest Preserve in the Adirondack and Catskill Parks. This visionary accomplishment was the inspiration for those who drafted the 1964 Wilderness Act. Whereas: Eleanor Roosevelt said, ``perhaps nature is our best assurance of immortality.'' As we celebrate the fortieth anniversary of this important act, New Yorkers are called upon to follow in the footsteps of Mr. McClure and become environmental stewards.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Much has been mentioned on this floor about what has been left out of this report and things put in that were extraneous. Well, I do not know how those of us on the Committee on the Judiciary can support this bill when so much of the work we included in the bill was stripped out of it. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, when they visited New York, were amazed and awestruck about the level of preparedness we in New York had, and I think even the Speaker said that we need to do more for New York. In the September 11 report, they said we need to do more. In our committee we included a provision to fund the anti-terrorism cops. Stripped out in this bill on the floor. We included a provision to allow all localities to make retroactive application for funds. Stripped out in this bill. We certainly did not include any language to have a minimum guaranty for cities like New York, to make sure if the list grows too long, they still have the basic amount they need. What we did manage to do is do the opposite of what the September 11 Commission recommended, which was to have a minimum guaranty for all States irrespective of their needs. I just hope my colleagues remember that when the agriculture bill comes on the floor and those of us from Brooklyn and Queens and Manhattan come and we say we want a minimum guaranty of wheat subsidies or corn subsidies. But I will tell my colleagues something that certainly did get included in the bill, is a provision on page 395 of the bill, saying ``it is the sense of Congress we should have a more robust dialogue between the government of the United States and the government of Saudi Arabia in order to provide a reevaluation and improvements to the relationship by both sides.'' What is it with the love affair that you have with the Saudi Arabians? The problems with our relationship on both sides? Have we jacked up their gas prices? Did we not be thankful to them when they defended our country? Did we send 15 of 19 bombers to their country? Why do you keep doing this, every time we stand up in this House and say, enough with the Saudis, you stick language like this back in. What is with the love affair of President Bush and your party with the Saudi Arabian government? They are not our allies. They have not behaved like our allies. Yet, in the September 11 report, in the ultimate sign of contempt for the victims, you are laying down and prostrate at the feet of the Saudi Arabians. It is a shame.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable that in DNA people see this issue through many different prisms, all of them positive. For those of us in this Chamber who are concerned about law enforcement, DNA is truly a miracle. It is better than a fingerprint. It is better than a video tape. It is better than an eye witness. It is better than a lie detector. With DNA we can find out who did a crime, and as other speakers have spoken to here, we can also find out who did not do it. But the prism I look at this issue through was formed early in my congressional career. The prism I look at DNA through is a series of cardboard boxes all stacked in a refrigerated warehouse in Long Island City. That is where I found rape kits that were evidence for crime scenes, completely anonymous except for the numbers written on the side of these cardboard boxes, 16,000 of them in early 1999 when I was first elected, all collected at crime scenes in New York City, all that had not been analyzed, all that had not been processed, all representing a victim that was awaiting justice. That backlog is heartrending. That backlog does not represent a simple number on the box. That backlog represent an individual, an individual crime. And the mystery was that it was not being stored in that refrigerated warehouse because of any bureaucratic problem. It was not being stored there because of any legal loggerhead. It came down to one thing: money. In 1999 I was proud to introduce in this House for the first time an authorization for congressional funding to help cities and states dig out of their backlog. With former Congressman Gilman and former Congressman McCollum we passed for the first time the Backlog Elimination Act. Because of that law, now localities across this country have been able to reduce their backlogs. They have not been eliminated. Also authorized in that law was a study that we learned the problem was not just in New York City; it was in small-town sheriffs' offices all around this country, in suburbs, in communities large and small. The analysis of those rape kits did not just provide statistics; it provided hits on cold cases. In New York City alone 154 cold cases that had been put on the shelf literally and figuratively were solved. They got leads in more than 200 other cases. Let us remember the nature of sexual assault. Experts tell us again and again that it is a recidivist crime. Someone that we are able to catch once and take off the street could conceivably not only solve several crimes but prevent several more from happening. Last year the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) and I tried to ramp up this issue one more time. And we realized that we had in partnership the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), who also saw DNA testing as an enormous opportunity. I believe we have crafted under the guidance of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), frankly, a bill that in anyone's prism would be seen as positive. There is no reason even in this moment of pitch partisanship in this House and in the other body, even in this time there is no reason why we should sit any longer on this legislation. I would urge in the strongest possible terms that we pass this legislation. We have passed in similar ways out of the committee and on this floor before. We have unified this House behind the issue of using DNA to bring justice to those who did crimes, justice to those who did not do crimes, and justice to those victims of crimes and their families. I would urge in the strongest terms possible that we not allow election-year politics to stop the other body from doing justice by this legislation. I urge passage of H.R. 5107.

Mr. WEINER

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

Mr. WEINER. I continue to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to reclaim my time, since the gentleman is not referring to gay marriage, and that is what this very important debate is about. Mr. Speaker, I have heard a great deal on this floor about the message we send our children, and we have different interpretations about what this debate means to our children. One thing I would urge my colleagues on the other side not to do is not to tell your children you are being conservative by supporting this. Conservative values, as I understand them, means not taking government and sticking it into every relationship and into every corner of someone's personal life, like you seek to do with a woman's right to reproductive freedom and like you seek to do with the most intimate of relationships today. Certainly, do not tell them that you are passing laws in this body to protect them. That you should not tell the children when you have passed laws to weaken water standards, weaken clean-air standards and to underfund education. So when you are talking to your children, do not tell them that. Certainly, do not tell them that you are being consistent, because many of the folks on the floor here are the strongest supporters of the Defense of Marriage Act, yet in the Committee on the Judiciary and on this floor over and over, when challenged as to its constitutionality, say, oh, absolutely; absolutely, it is constitutional. It has not even been struck down and already you are running away from your interpretation of DOMA. So do not tell them you are being consistent. And certainly, do not tell them that you are being honest, because if you were being honest, you would not lie to them and tell them that you are doing anything to amend the Constitution today. The Senate has already defeated this. If you are going to be honest with them, you are going to have to tell them what you are doing is simply posturing. So, certainly, do not tell them you are being honest. What you are doing is teaching them to hate. You are teaching them that the Constitution is the place you remove rights, not protect them. That, I think, has been a consistent theme of this year's session. So, perhaps, in that case, you are being consistent in using the Constitution that way. And I have to tell my colleagues, there are so many people who hang their heads today when talking about their grandparents who served in this august body. They hang their heads when they talk about their grandfather who stood up on the floor of the well and argued in favor of slavery. They are embarrassed by that. There are so many who hang their head when they talk about their grandfather who served in this august body and fought for denying the rights of women. They are embarrassed by that. Why is it that you think your grandchildren will not some day grow up and be telling their children about granddad or grandmom and have to be embarrassed about this debate; have to be embarrassed and ashamed by the idea that you, their grandparents, God willing, they are able to tell the story and how embarrassed they will be? Will they be embarrassed like those who have to talk about their grandparents who voted to support slavery or voted in support of rounding up Americans and putting them in internment camps? I hope that that is not the case. If you are concerned about what you will tell your grandkids, be more concerned about what they will tell their grandkids about you.

Mr. WEINER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas for a response.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I know the author of the bill came to the floor a few moments ago, the gentleman from Missouri, and said we are trying to confuse this issue with legality. I am actually confused by a couple of things. One, those of us who want ``God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance, we won. You would think from this debate that this morning when we took the Pledge of Allegiance, we did not say ``God.'' You would think that that crazy court in California that came up with the wrong decision was not reversed. We won that case. The second thing I am curious about, what is it about bills and issues that you do not strip review from that you like less than this? How come when you say that there should be no abortions for women in this country, that you do not strip the review of that? How come when you do your budget, you do not strip your review of that? How come when you do all of the other bills around, do not you love them as much? Are they not equally as important to you? I am shocked there is any legislation you bring to this floor that you do not strip the review of the courts, because, frankly, by your interpretation of the Constitution, the court has no role there. The final question I have, and I hate to vex my opponents on the other side with talk of legality, but if not the courts are interpreting the Constitution of the United States, who is going to do it? What is your suggestion? Are we going to have like a reality show, where maybe we let 12 people on an island come up with the decision? And what if you do not have Federal courts doing it, you just have the State courts? Maybe I guess then the 14th Amendment is a bit troublesome. I guess there are no uniform constitutional rights in this country, no uniform right to bear arms, no uniform right to speech and to practice religion. If anyone can answer any of those three points, I will gladly vote for this bill.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, the author of the base bill, the gentleman from Missouri, is a friend of mine, but apparently there is a second Congressman Akin around here somewhere. Perhaps he was the one who wrote the bill. The original version of the bill says, with respect to the jurisdiction of Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court, and says that the Supreme Court shall be able to hear these cases. That was what the author of the bill said. Now, the reason the author originally included that language, although he is now opposed to having it reinserted, the reason he put it in is because we do need someone to be the final arbiter of the interpretation of free speech, freedom of religion cases, of all cases, among the different States. Imagine if we had a United States of America envisioned by the gentleman from Indiana, where every State court was free to kind of come up with their own interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. What incentive would there be on the parts of folks in Missouri, for example, or the folks in New York to have consistent constitutional values in this country? Now, I have heard again and again, let us refer to the Constitution of the United States. I will freely confess one thing. Nowhere is judicial review in the Constitution. It was the creation of a great man that all of us went on record paying tribute to just last month. When John Marshall came up with this concept, it has been sacrosanct throughout jurisprudence since then. But I ask my colleagues again and again, if not judicial review, then what? Who is it that guarantees me as a member of the minority, someone who is one person who believes he has a right to stand up for gun rights, let us say, who guarantees my constitutional right to speak if not the court? This is the body where the majority has its say. We do it every day. The courts are where the minority, even the tiniest of minorities, go to have their day in court. For those of you who are concerned about the Pledge of Allegiance, we won that case. We won. We lost the case, by the way on my side, when the Supreme Court overturned precedent and appointed a President. But if we were Republicans what would we do? Strip the Supreme Court from any right to decide and let all 50 States decide who the President is? I would conclude with a question. That is, do you believe that reproductive rights legislation should be protected from judicial review? If so, include it in your bill. Do you believe that tax should be subject to judicial review? If so, then strip the courts in those cases. I would say to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) since he is on his feet, does he believe that a woman's right to choose, or your position, restricting abortion, is important of principle, that we in this Congress should strip judicial review? Yes or no.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for the time. I guess what it comes down to is a person's view of where an individual who is in the minority on an issue, even an issue that is protected in the Constitution, where does that person go to have their rights protected? What if 435 of us believe one way about the Constitution, where does that one lone individual go? If we do not allow them access to the court, and one highest court, to mediate disputes between the various States, we simply do not have the system that we have today, and that should be the lesson of this effort. Every school child in America who had forgotten what the courts were supposed to be should be reminded of that by this amendment.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It frequently falls upon me as a nonlawyer on the Committee on the Judiciary to try to sort through the facts of these things and try to reduce them into small words that those of us who are nonlawyers can understand. But I was taken by one fact that was articulated by one of my colleagues on the other side that according to a recent survey, 80 percent of the American people are against frivolous lawsuits. I would love to know who the 20 percent are that like frivolous lawsuits so that we can have a focus group with them. They are probably lawyers of some sort, I would imagine. First, let me just say we rarely have an opportunity to take a look at a proposal before us today and look at almost an identical proposal that was the law of the land between 1983 and 1993. Then, too, there was an effort to unclog the courts of frivolous lawsuits; then, too, the Judicial Conference, not this body, the Judicial Conference said we have to try to come up with some rules. What was the effect? The effect was not reducing the amount of frivolous lawsuits; it was adding a whole new level of litigation around frivolous lawsuits. Rather than simply having a judge say, that is frivolous, it is out of here, let us move on with the case, you then had suits and countersuits over whether or not something was frivolous, because it was elevated with the changes that were made in that decade. We also found that an unintended consequence, and I think even my colleagues acknowledge that it was unintended by their effort, albeit insubstantial, to carve out civil rights suits, we found that when you were bringing a novel, new kind of suit, you found yourself being charged with making a frivolous lawsuit. Civil rights cases is just one of them. We also saw the same thing could have or did happen when you sued tobacco companies to recover for States. And today, I would dare say that someone who brought a case that is being brought in New York today, suing the country of Saudi Arabia for their culpability in the September 11 attacks, someone could come before a judge and say this is a frivolous lawsuit because it represents no precedent, it has never been tried before and, therefore, should be dismissed. Obviously, it did not have that effect in that 10 years of clearing out the docket of frivolous lawsuits. If anything, it increased them. Secondly, we have heard frequently the matrix drawn between frivolous lawsuits, increase of litigation, and insurance rates. I looked at the bill fairly carefully. Nowhere does it require that insurance rates go down, so I will have to assume the same thing will happen upon passage of this bill, although the passage will not happen, because the other body will never take up such a bill, that you will put in the restrictions of average Americans getting into court and then, lo and behold, insurance rates keep going up and up and up, because that is what happened in California, and that is what happened in Florida. So if my colleagues think that by voting for this bill they will be reducing insurance rates, nothing could be further from the truth. There has been some back-and-forth about this notion of venue shopping: you can only bring an action in the defendant's, not the person who is bringing the case, the defendant's principal place of business. Well, again, I have very talented lawyers on both sides of this, but the Congressional Research Service, the American Law Division, hardly a pantheon of partisanship, hardly the place to go to get the talking points for Fox News or for whoever guys think lies, they write, ``If a defendant's principal place of business was not the United States, then this option could not be exercised in a United States court. Consequently, it would appear that in certain circumstances, a United States citizen or resident injured in this country would not have a judicial forum in the United States in which to seek relief.'' That is what a relatively unbiased analysis of this thing looks like; but even if it is not, what problem are you trying to solve? You should allow Americans to take their cases where they are most appropriate, not where you believe it should be. Now, let me conclude with this thought. I heard a couple of times on the campaign trail President Bush talked about not having a Washington- based, one-size-fits-all solution for our Nation's problems. There is another way to do this. There is another way. There is a way to look at cases that have individual facts, have individual people, take them before an individual, say a judge; or take those cases before a group of individuals, say six or nine or 12 individual Americans from their community, and allow them to vet the different sides of the argument and allow that to be the decision-making process. It is called the American justice system, and as contemptuous as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are that you could actually have a judge that has the common sense to make a decision or a jury that has the common sense to make a decision, or whether you can possibly have two lawyers in the adversarial proceeding get the truth out, we here in Washington have to say, this one size fits all. Well, fortunately, this one size will only be in this one House and will never be the law of this one land.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, to vote in favor of H.R. 3313, I would say that the supporters of the bill have to reach four conclusions: One, they have to decide that Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided. Some people on the Committee on the Judiciary freely admitted that. You have to agree that when John Marshall wrote, ``If the courts are to regard the Constitution and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution and not such act shall govern the case to which they both apply.'' Secondly, you have to come to the conclusion that DOMA is going to be struck down by this very conservative Supreme Court. Otherwise, why would you be here? If you thought the court was going to uphold it, and I have to tell you, I went back and I looked at some of the speeches. A lot of the debate was whether or not DOMA was constitutional. And, one by one, you stood up and said, oh, it absolutely is, it absolutely is, it absolutely is. So you have to conclude in order to support H.R. 3313 that the Supreme Court is about to strike down DOMA, although I do not know where you get that indication, unless you believe it was violative of the Constitution. Third, you have to believe that this clause is more important than abortion, more important than gun control, more important than the Flag amendment, more important than any other thing, because you are including this provision in this bill and you have not done it to protect abortion or to ban abortion or to protect gun rights. How come? Do you not feel strongly about those things? Do you not want to keep the Supreme Court out of those issues? And finally, in order to support this, you have to have utter and complete contempt for individual rights and freedoms, something I thought conservatives stood for. What if you are the only person in your State that believes something? What if you are the only person in your judicial area that believes something? And what if you are right? What if you are protected by the Constitution? Time and time again I have heard people stand up and say this is about doing the will of the people. That is not what the courts are supposed to do. The courts are supposed to protect the minority to make sure their rights are not trampled on, protect women when they want to vote, protect blacks when they want to be considered citizens, protect those that want to have the full rights of the Constitution. That is what the Court is supposed to guarantee, because that is never what the majority does. The majority looks out for the majority rule. That is not the role of the legislature, that is the role of the courts. If you draw those conclusions that you think DOMA is constitutionally flawed, Marbury v. Madison was wrongly concluded, that this is a more important issue than abortion, gun control, anything else, and that you have contempt for individual rights, vote yes on H.R. 3313.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, as a nonlawyer and observing that there are many young people in the gallery today, this is actually an instructive debate that we are having for the second time in 2 weeks. Last week, with the sponsorship of Republicans and Democrats alike, we paid tribute to John Marshall. John Marshall was perhaps the most important jurist in the history of the United States, because despite what many people think, in the Constitution of the United States nowhere does it say who will settle disputes between the legislature, the executive, and the courts. What if each of the three branches come to a different conclusion? Well, John Marshall, in 1803, 201 years ago, said the courts are going to decide. The courts are going to be the final arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not. For 200 years, that has served as the way that we have operated, virtually unquestioned. It was even unquestioned in the year 2000 when, in the Constitution of the United States, it clearly says that Congress has the right to choose electors, and the Supreme Court took that upon itself. We Democrats, although we were very concerned about it, jurists, scholars of jurisprudence said it was a terrible decision, but no one says it should not be the courts to make that decision. I would say to the gentlewoman or anyone who supports this bill, if not the courts then who? Who is going to make the decision about the constitutionality of this law? We are left with essentially three choices. One, we can say the State courts will make that final determination. But what if we have two State courts that are in conflict? Who is going to resolve that dispute? Two, we can say that it will be the legislature that will always decide these things, and we have 50 different legislative interpretations, or the legislature will change every 2 years, changing interpretation of the law. And the third choice is just anyone can choose whatever interpretation that they like. Before we choose anything but the courts, before we support this, let us remember something here. The courts are where the minority goes to have their views heard. That one person who is standing outside a movie theater; the courts are where that one person goes who wants to protect his right to bear arms against a legislature that is overzealous, where the one person goes who has burnt a flag and wants to go to find out if what he has done is constitutional. There are dozens and dozens of places in society where the majority rules. The court is the only place we go to protect our constitutional rights. So to the sponsors of the bill, to the sponsors of the rule, I ask them, if not John Marshall's way, if not judicial review, if not the Supreme Court of the United States of America, then who will it be who will decide what is constitutional and what is not?