Anthony Weiner

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, it is not usual that a relatively young man like myself can say that I have known someone well for nearly 20 years, but it is in that spirit that I welcome Rabbi David Halpern here this morning and thank him for his thoughtful words. Brooklyn is full of distinguished spiritual leaders, and Rabbi Halpern stands out as a giant among them. Rabbi Halpern is a past President of the Rabbinical Board of Flatbush, where he served as Chairman of the Board's Membership Committee for 13 years. He is also a prominent member of other Rabbinical organizations and the Rabbinical Council of the United States. He is widely respected and recognized for his intellect and wisdom, but, if there is one thing that distinguishes Rabbi Halpern, it is dedication not only to his faith, but in particular to his congregants and his community. More than 50 years ago, Rabbi Halpern became the first Rabbi of the Flatbush Park Jewish Center. And more than 50 years later, Rabbi Halpern is still there, and the community is stronger than ever. Under his leadership, Flatbush Park has grown from a gathering of only 65 families in a rented store into a Modern Orthodox congregation of more than 500 family members. Today, there are thousands of people in Brooklyn and beyond whose spiritual lives were shaped by Rabbi Halpern. As hard as I try to express what Rabbi Halpern means to this community, the ultimate testament is how many people joined him on his journey to Washington today. Dozens from his community, as well as distinguished Rabbis, are here in his honor, and it is my particular pleasure to welcome Rabbi Halpern's wife Sheila, his son Neil, his daughters Risa and Beth, his son-in-law Dennis and his granddaughter Lauren who are in Washington on this most important occasion. In closing, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives and our grateful community, I would like to thank Rabbi Halpern for his eloquent words this morning and for his service to our whole country.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, something in me enjoys this exercise in self-flagellation by all of the lawyers in this Chamber. From time to time, those of us who are not lawyers in this Chamber, we convene a meeting, and we can do it in the phone booth in the cloakroom; but now we are all so angry at lawyers. But this is not about lawyers. Frankly, most Americans are neither lawyers nor, thank God, are they victims, so they do not have to go into courts; and that is a good thing. But the groups that do represent victims, that do represent average Americans, almost universally oppose this legislation. Those that represent cancer patients, the American Cancer Society, oppose this legislation. Those who fight against pollution, the Clean Water Action, oppose this legislation. Those who represent seniors, the Gray Panthers, oppose this legislation. Those who represent consumers oppose this legislation. Those who fight against violence against women, the National Women's Health Network, oppose this legislation, because it is bad for victims and it is bad for those who use the system. The gentleman from Virginia had these great charts. I am going to have to gesture because he would not let me use them. He had these great charts about 35 cents; that is all people are getting. Do my colleagues know why? Because there are millions and millions of victims; millions and millions of victims in that class. That is all that can go around is 35 cents. There are hundreds and thousands of victims in this class. When you brag that, well, all the money that was left after they gave out these multimillion dollars was only 35 cents a person, that is a subject of how many people there were in that class. I say to my colleagues, the bottom line is that it is ironic to hear the same people who came to this floor a couple of weeks ago and said, oh, the amount the victims are getting is too high, let us cap it at $250,000, now they are saying that 35 cents is too low. Do my Republican colleagues want to have a minimum? Sign me up. What is the number going to be? I know it is lower than $250,000 and higher than 35 cents, but we have to let my colleagues decide, because a jury cannot handle it. Oh, no. It is too mind-boggling for a jury to handle, because that is nine or 12 people from your district. They chose you, but they cannot figure out if Cheerios was right to short-change millions of consumers. And let me say one other thing. Let me tell my colleagues one other group who should oppose this legislation: anyone that has the audacity to call themselves conservative. If you think it is conservative to take power away from the people and their States and give it to 1,500 Federal judges who sit in there in their marble chambers, who never talk to anyone or touch anyone, if you think that is conservative, you have it completely backwards. But then again, you do. You have it completely backwards.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by offering a word of apology and concern for the many lawyers in this Chamber. This has been a very bad afternoon for all of the lawyers who have seen their reputations dragged through the mud. And those of us who are not lawyers, the seven or eight of us here, will be meeting later in a phone booth off the cloakroom to discuss how badly we feel for all of these horrible lawyers who have been flogging themselves on the floor all afternoon. I should also express my sorrows to those victims who use the courts to try to find redress. Now, most Americans are thankfully not lawyers and they are not victims. And we are grateful and thank God for that. But for the organizations who do represent victims, this has been a very bad day, whether it is the American Cancer Society that opposes this legislation because they represent victims of cancer. A bad day for them. It has been a bad day for those who advocate against water pollution like Clean Water Action. It has been a very bad day because they oppose this bill. This bill is also a setback for those who advocate for seniors who have been victims, for those who advocate on behalf of women who have been victims. All of these groups are against this bill. This has also been a very bad day for anyone in this Chamber who calls themselves a conservative. This has been a very bad day for you, because for all of the efforts that you put in to returning power to the States, returning power to individuals, this bill does the exact opposite. It says that the people in our local States, the people in our State courts are simply not smart enough to handle these cases. They are simply not sophisticated enough. We trust them to put them in charge of choosing their Congressman, but we do not trust them on a jury. No, that is too big a mistake. So we take out of the hands of about the 50,000 State courts and give them to about 1,500 Federal judges. This is a huge setback for all of you who support stronger State government. This has also been a very bad day for anyone who wants to be intellectually consistent. Was it not about 2 weeks ago you voted on putting a cap on the amount that victims can get, and now you come up here with your charts saying, oh, it is terrible how little victims are getting. There is a reason victims are getting 35 cents, 40 cents, $1, $2.50. It is because there are millions and hundreds of thousands of victims in these cases all chopping up the 5-, 6-, 7-, $8 million claims. So it is a very bad day if you want to be consistent. Although, any of those who claim about how low the amount that victims are getting, I look forward to a bill on this floor sometime in the near future putting a minimum amount that victims have to get in these cases. By the way, I will vote for that. You can sign me up as a cosponsor. While I cannot improve the day for those groups, if there are some of you in this body who see that this is a terrible power grab, for those of you who do not mind the power grab against the States, who do not mind sticking it to victims, who do not mind flogging yourself as a lawyer, who do not mind being inconsistent conservatives, there are a couple of ways to improve the bill in case you do not want to be a pig. If you do not want to be a pig about it, there are two things in this bill that no one asked for, were not in the original version of the bill, and really are an affront to our basic elements of fairness. One is the element that says you can have retroactive effects of this bill, meaning taking things that are presently going through the process, even if they are due to be judged tomorrow, and sending them back; and the second is the provision that gives mandatory appeal on the certification of a class. What that will have the effect of doing is that at any point in the process, if someone wanted to challenge the certification of a class, whether it be Enron or WorldCom, if they are in the case right now, even if it is in the Federal court, this will allow them to stop everything in its tracks and go back on appeal. By the way, for those of you who think that the lower courts get overturned a lot on appeal, it has never happened. It has never happened. So these are two minor ways for those of you who spend so much time flogging yourself because you are such evil lawyers to be able to vote for this bill and improve it in a minor way. This does not make this a good bill. That is too much to hope for in this Congress in this day and age. But what it will do is make it a little less offensive to those victims who are now waiting for some redress to that grievance. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

Mr. WEINER

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

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for those words. Perhaps in the interim we could also inform some of the small business groups and advocates, who are probably the primary victims of these fees, small businesses who are in good faith accepting these things. The larger businesses, the Wal-Marts of the world, probably say to their banks, we refuse to pay them. But this will be an opportunity. I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to give me another bite at this apple at the appropriate time.

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

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I thank the sponsors for giving me an opportunity to speak. This is clearly a bill, as the previous speaker outlined, that improves efficiency and hopefully reduces costs to banks. One thing that was not addressed in this legislation, though, is a remaining area of patent unfairness to consumers. We all know that a check is essentially an article of faith. It is a contract between two people. From time to time, people write checks that they simply do not have the money to cover. They are penalized. They pay a fine by their bank, anywhere in the neighborhood of $15 to $25. But what continues to be the case in this country, in many banks, in the neighborhood of about 85 percent of the big banks and about 75 percent of smaller banks, is someone who receives the check, who is already out the amount of money that they were supposed to be given, is also charged a fee, a fine. This is patently unfair. It is counterintuitive; and, frankly, it is indefensible. I think we should address this in this House. Some of the arguments that are raised to defend the idea that the person who gets the check should be fined when someone bounces a check say that there is an added cost to banks when someone bounces a check. This is true. It is estimated that that cost is in the neighborhood of 48 to 65 cents, depending on what study we see. It is clear that someone should be penalized for that. Frankly, we can argue it is too high, but the person who wrote the check is already getting a $20-some- odd-dollar fine. Also, there is a relationship between all banks in the system that when there is a bounced check, if the credit union has a bounced check that they have to return to CitiBank, there is a relationship there that they exchange a few dimes to make up for that cost. The net of all of this is the banking business makes about $6.1 billion of profits, according to 1999 numbers, just on these transactions. They cover the costs, and then industry-wide they make about $6.1 billion. So the idea that the costs are not getting covered is certainly not the case. Secondly, some have argued that we need to have a disincentive for a merchant who is going to get a bad check. We have to incentivize them, checking vigorously to make sure they are getting it from a legitimate person. Well, this is the silliest argument. They already have the greatest incentive of all. If they get a bad check, they are out the money or they are out the service or they are out the product that they exchange in exchange for that. That is why we all go to our local diners and we see the checks up, notices up, ``we do not accept checks from this person,'' because they definitely do not want to get snookered a second time. So the idea that they should get a $20, a $15 or $10 fine, somehow creates a disincentive is simply not the case. A third argument made is that, well, when we are receiving a check, we should be extra vigilant. We should call up to make sure the person has the money in their account. Well, I have news, because of excellent legislation passed by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and others, we cannot do that. We cannot receive a check for $100 and call up the bank and say, listen, I have account number 1751. Do they have $100 in their account? They cannot even exchange that information, so there is no way you as the person receiving the check can avoid that fee. Some people have said, well, the receiving banks have costs just like the issuing bank has costs. As I mentioned, those costs are already covered. Then, finally, after we cut through all of it, I have found in my one experience with this, and some industry leaders have said, do you know what, at the end of the day if you make a stink about it, we do not charge. That is not any way to run a railroad. Frankly, this fee, this fine, this penalty is indefensible. It does not penalize someone who does something wrong, it does not disincentivize activity in any way, and it does not encourage any type of activity that a person can protect. One of the things we are doing here is making this transaction more efficient. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) said it in the debate on the rule, do we want to improve the efficiency here? That is the rationale. But I think we also have to restore a sense of fairness. This is one open fissure in the law that I look for opportunities to address. Now, I know that we are here under an open rule and I have the opportunity, but I would ask the gentleman from Massachusetts if perhaps there might be other opportunities to address this inequity.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that today, as we commemorate Yom Hashoah, the commemoration of the Holocaust here in Washington, DC, that I ask the House to join me in welcoming Rabbi Manny Behar, who gave the invocation this morning. Rabbi Behar is one of the most prominent spiritual leaders in the Queens community. Since 1992, he has been the executive director of the Queens Jewish Community Council, an umbrella organization for more than 90 synagogues and Jewish institutions throughout our borough. In this position, he oversees a network of social service programs which include every service we can imagine, from counseling for victims of September 11 to assistance for homebound elderly to food distribution to job placement and training. Rabbi Behar should feel at home here in the halls of Congress, because before coming to the Queens Jewish Community Council he had a distinguished career working in government. He was special assistant to Queens Borough president Claire Shulman, where he played a critical role in obtaining the historic New York State Supreme Court decision upholding the validity of Eruvim under American law. During his tenure working for New York City controller Elizabeth Holtzman, he did research which led to the first conviction of an American company for participating in the Arab boycott of Israel. It is my pleasure to also welcome Rabbi Behar's wife Evelyn, his two sons Moshe David and Nathan Benjamin, his father Moshe, and his cousins, Shalom and Cynthia Brilliant, who are here today. We wish Rabbi Behar's mom Rivka a speedy get well. On behalf of the House of Representatives we would like to thank him, not only for his eloquent words this morning, but more importantly, for his service to his faith, his community, and to his country.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, this has been a great time for student athletes from Brooklyn and Queens. Earlier this month, St. John's won its record sixth National Invitation Tournament with a 70-67 comeback victory over Big East rival Georgetown. One cannot help but wonder what they would have been able to do if they had been given the bid to the NCAA Tournament that they deserved. While St. John's has won many titles in its history, I also wanted to congratulate a school that just won its first, Magen David Yeshiva. This past month, the Warriors won their first championship in school history, defeating Ramaz of Manhattan 64 to 48 to claim the Metropolitan Yeshiva High School Athletic League crown. In the championship game, Charles Chehebar led the way with 24 points on 10 for 16 shooting, including 18 points in the second half. Not surprisingly, he was the game's MVP. Team captain Maurice Levy added 13 points, making 63 percent of his shots in the second half, and Ralph Cohen also made it into double figures, netting 13 points. Of course many other players contributed to this unprecedented victory, and I wanted to take this opportunity to recognize these young men--Robert Abadi, Jack Beyda, Albert Braha, Albert Dayan, Eddie Dayan, Steven Fallas, Steven Gindi, Ralph Hasbani, Joseph Kameo, Isaac Kassin, Isaac Mizrahi, Steven Orfali, Irving Sassoon, Ovadia Setti. Under the leadership of Head Coach Morris Dweck and Assistant Coach Danny Mizrahi, this was a particularly emotional win, since the team dedicated the game to the memory of Leo Chalom, a 2001 Magen David graduate who passed away less than a week before the championship game. A crowd of 1,500 recited a chapter of Psalms in his memory before the game, and I am heartened to know that the Warriors' victory was able to bring some solace and happiness to the members of the Magen David community who are working their way through trying times. On behalf of the U.S. House of Representatives and all of the people of the city of New York, I offer my hearty congratulations to the Red Storm of St. John's and the Warriors of Magen David Yeshiva on their tremendous accomplishments.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, between 300 and 1,000 people were killed in attacks on more than a dozen villages in northeastern Congo last week. According to witnesses on the ground, the coordinated attacks started with a whistle blow and lasted between five and eight hours. UN and International Red Cross observers say that they have witnessed the results of the killing, 20 mass graves. Mass killings such as this have become a regular occurrence in the Congo Civil War, which killed more than 50,000 last year. Yesterday, up to one thousand people were killed in the span of a few hours, yet these stories don't even make the front page of the papers here in the States. How many people have to die before we will take action? How many lives need to be shattered before we will stand up and say, ``Enough!'' How many more massacres can we sit by and watch before we will realize our mistakes? The United States' failure as a world leader in human rights is demonstrated in our lack of will to stop massacres that have occurred in places like Congo, Kosova, Rwanda, Iraq, and many others. But it is also seen in our denial of those massacres that we know have taken place. Every year since I was elected to Congress, I have joined my colleagues in the House of Representative to hold this annual vigil commemorating the Armenian Genocide for a simple reason, because there are those out there who deny that it ever occurred. Eighty-eight years ago, on April 24, 1915, the government of the Ottoman-Turkish Empire rounded up approximately 600 leaders and intellectuals of the Armenian community and executed them. This was the beginning of the mass slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman-Turkish Empire. We know this happened, and we know how many people were killed and we know how it was done and by whom. Yet the official U.S. government position on this atrocity is that it was not a genocide, that there was no deliberate attempt by the Ottoman Turks to wipe-out the Armenian population. We here on the floor today know better. And we know that by denying the truth surrounding this tragic chapter of history, we are only providing cover for the next genocide to begin. The events in Africa last week provide yet another chilling example: If we fail to act, these types of terrible crimes will persist. Eighty-eight years of denials are enough. We in Congress need to pass an Armenian Genocide Resolution and put to rest this campaign to deny the Armenian genocide. I urge all my colleagues in the House to join with me under the leadership of our Armenian Caucus co-chairs, Joe Knollenberg and Frank Pallone, and cosponsor a resolution to finally put this denial to an end.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, first of all, as the debate begins, let us put some myths to rest. We are going to hear a great deal of references to the California law that put in a cap. Since 1998, premiums have gone up 37 percent in California. Nationally they have gone up about 6 percent. So you keep talking about how great that has worked, but frankly it has not. In Florida where they also have a cap, and there are plenty of places around the country that do, they have a $450,000 cap that was put in the last time that suddenly we had an insurance crisis in this country in 1985, 1986. What happened then? Oh, yeah, insurance companies lost a lot of money in the stock market then, too, so that was the last crisis that we had. At the time Florida, they were smart, they asked insurance companies to report back to them the effect of the law. Aetna Casualty reported back. St. Paul, then the largest malpractice insurer, reported back; and in the words of St. Paul they said, quote, ``The new limits will produce little or no savings to the tort system as it pertains to medical malpractice.'' So feel free to keep talking about the examples that we have, but I think that you will find that when push comes to shove, the precedent is that these caps do not lower premiums. They do not lower premiums. We are also going to hear a great deal of assertion today about out- of-control juries, out-of-control awards, judges who are completely out of their mind when they make decisions. Frankly, Duke Law School studied this notion not so long ago, as a matter of fact, in December of 2002. Here is what they said, and this is a quote: ``The assertion that jurors decide cases out of sympathy for injuries to plaintiffs rather than the legal merits of the case have been made about malpractice juries since at least the 19th century, yet no research shows support for these claims.'' But this is part of what I think is an underlying theme on the other side. American citizens cannot be trusted on juries to decide for themselves. They are not smart enough. Apparently my colleagues believe that juries that are made up of nine or 12 American citizens from your districts cannot be trusted to make these decisions. They simply are not trustworthy. But who are they? They are the same people that voted for you. Why is it you trust them to make a decision about who their Congressman would be and you will not trust them to make a decision about whether or not some medical malpractice case occurred and someone should be held accountable for that? But there is another current here that I think is even more pernicious. Here we are. We sit in the Committee on the Judiciary. Let us take a look at what we have been doing recently. First, we are coming out after victims of this. This law only applies to you if you have been a victim of medical malpractice. You are a victim, but still we in the House want to take away your rights. Next we are going to take up bankruptcy reform. If you are really poor or you have fallen on hard times, we are coming after you next. But do not get too comfortable, because soon I hear that if you are an asbestos victim, we are going to come after your rights, too. This is who the Republican Party is standing up for in this House.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, as we engage in this most patriotic debate, I am struck by how much we all seem to agree upon. We all seek to avoid using our troops and unleashing our military might unless we are forced to. The greatness of our Nation is not measured in our muscle, but in our restraint. We are a Nation of awesome power; but we do not use it to conquer other peoples, to expand our borders. We are rightly proud of our history of taking the first blow before we move to respond. On this we all agree. We all seem to understand and support the imperative of operating in cooperation with international institutions and multilateral coalitions when tackling truly global challenges. It is moral leadership to act in concert with others, and it is smart politics. We prefer this path for it speaks to our respect for others, and we follow this path because it makes the road to our national goals that much smoother. On this we all agree. We all agree that the regime in Iraq is a menace to the region and anathema to international law, not to mention a disgrace to our common humanity. Even the most fervent opponent of use of force does not contend that Saddam Hussein is not a tyrant. On this we agree. Finally, we all agree that in some degree or another preemption has to be part of our national defense. Perhaps this is more clear to those of us who once lived in the shadow of the World Trade Center or those of us who attended a funeral for one of the fallen of September 11 or those of us who looked into the eyes of a child whose parent was taken from them in the attacks. We all agree if we could strike first to prevent the terror of 9-11 we all would have. We all would have. Preemption is not immoral. Permitting an attack that we can deter is immoral. On this we agree. So how is it that we agree on so much yet differ on this resolution so starkly? Let me address three points I have heard today and, commonly, over the last weeks. First, I have heard those that oppose the resolution argue that there is no imminent threat, nothing dire enough for us to act immediately. First, let me concede that this debate should have taken place after the election. It could have taken place after the election, and it would have been most appropriate for it to take place after the election; but I find it astounding that some suggest that because there is no smoking gun we ought not act. To employ the same metaphor, we have a madman who hates us, gun and bullets in the same room. After hundreds of hours of hearings and thousands of pages of revelations about our failure to connect the dots on so many occasions, why is it now we hear this insistence on metaphysical certainty of the madman's intent before we act? News flash. What we do not know about his intent could fill a book. The same critics of our intelligence capability are now expecting perfect intelligence. Secondly, some have argued that Saddam has not been belligerent. In fact, he has. The U.N. resolutions that were passed as part of the ceasefire in 1991 were agreed to by the parties to ensure that Saddam would not be belligerent. He has violated every one. Is not the violation of anti-belligerence agreements itself a sign of belligerence? Finally, I have heard the argument that Saddam's capabilities are so degraded that he posed no threat to us or to his neighbors. I remind my colleagues that the cost of the entire September 11 attacks on our Nation were less than that of a single tank. How much does it cost, how hard is it to strap nerve canisters to a terrorist posing as a tourist and have them walk into Times Square or into the National Archives? He does not need an ICBM to reach New York or Washington. Saddam Hussein just needs a chance. I will vote for the resolution, but I say to the President that I am voting for all of it. I am voting for the part that encourages that all diplomatic measures possible be taken, including a final round of inspections. Use of force as a last resort must truly be a last resort. And to my colleagues who seek disarmament and concession for Saddam, as do I, I would urge we consider the need to demonstrate with no uncertainty that we mean business. The best way to avoid the use of force, I would argue, is to authorize the use of force. Cajoling, negotiating, strong language, harsh proclamations alone will not work against Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein must understand today that the jig is up, no more delay, no more obstruction. We will take your weapons either with your assent or without it.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in welcoming Rabbi Melvyn May, who gave the invocation this morning. He is the spiritual leader of the West End Temple in Neponsit, New York. His path to that post took him through Connecticut, New Jersey and Brooklyn; and in each and every place he held positions of leadership in the community. He was someone who led the campaign for better understanding among our communities. When he arrived at Neponsit, he arrived at, frankly, a most troubled time in our community. He arrived in October, 2001, one month almost to the day after the horrific attack on the World Trade Center that took so many of our neighbors in Rockaway, and he arrived also one month before a terrible plane crash in Belle Harbor, a stone's throw from his congregation's home. During that time, Rabbi May, with dignity and with great understanding, led our community through that most difficult time. He has, in a relatively brief time, just about a year, become a force for healing and understanding throughout our community. At this time of the holidays in the Jewish faith, he has been someone who has also led a campaign for better understanding among our very diverse communities in New York City. I ask my colleagues in the House to join me in welcoming Rabbi May, and we ask that his accomplishments be spread across the record of this great body so that they can be shared throughout the Nation.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to make one concluding thought. One of the things that has been suggested in some quarters, and we are having a great deal of discussion in New York about how to redevelop lower Manhattan is, ``Well, maybe we shouldn't build big buildings anymore.'' I think this legislation is a recognition of just the opposite. Big buildings have always been, as E.B. White described it, built out of our desire to reach for the heavens. In New York City, frankly, we do not have big wide open spaces, so we are not going to build out to the sides. We are going to be building high-rise. There is another absolute fact I can say going forward: We are always going to have firefighters who are going to run into those buildings to save people on the high floors. Those are two almost immutable facts of life in New York and probably in the United States of America. This legislation is a sign that we are not retreating from that idea. What we are doing is trying to learn from our experiences, to try to make both the people who work in those buildings, firefighters and emergency workers who may someday, God forbid, have to rush into those buildings, make them both safer. But let no one see this legislation being passed and say, well, we are getting a little bit weak in the knees about whether or not we should be living up to our greatest ambitions as Americans and as New Yorkers. Neither one is true. In fact, this is recognition that we are going to be building big buildings, we are going to be making them safer, we are going to be making them such that emergency workers can get in and out of them with ease and make them, frankly, never terror-proof, they are never going to be earthquake-proof, they are never going to be bomb-proof, but we are going to try to learn the tragic lessons of September 11. That should be the legacy of those 2,801 people that were lost that day. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to add a couple of points of explanation to what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) has said. First of all, it is clear that no one in this body, no one on the Committee on Science, no one could have anticipated that dreadful act, that shameful act of cowardice that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center. In fact, nothing that we do today should negate the fact that the way those buildings were built, with such strength and such great craftsmanship, they stood for over an hour, even after they were hit with the most horrific forces any building has had to withstand. What is the result, today over 25,000 families are together with their surviving member because they were able to get out alive. It was the largest urban rescue in history, and it would not have been possible had it not been for the fortitude of those buildings. But we also would be remiss if we did not recognize that the investigation that ensued after the September 11 building collapse was a disaster. There was miscommunication between different agencies. There was infighting with agencies. To give Members an idea, 80 percent of the steel from those buildings was taken away and recycled before any expert could take a look at them to try to determine if there were flaws that could be avoided in the future. The electrical switches that could have provided so many telltale signs for investigators were taken away. There were even fights over whether investigators had the right to see the blueprints to the building. In fact, the way I put it, it was a crime scene, and not only was there no smoking gun found, but there was no weapon found. In truth, there was not even a detective assigned to the case. That is what we are trying to address today. I should point out this is not just idle Monday morning quarterbacking. There are real things that we will be able to learn from this investigation and others to come, although we all hope that this agency is never used. We could learn things that we learned already in the preliminary investigation of the World Trade Center, that perhaps having exit stairwells so close together makes it possible that they can all be knocked out through one horrific event, such as happened in Tower One where three of the stairwells were completely knocked out, preventing egress to the top. We can learn something that hopefully we would have learned in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, that we need to hard-wire repeaters into these buildings. Repeaters allow firefighters on the ground to talk to firefighters almost a quarter of a mile up without interference on the radio. The most haunting thing that came from so many of the revelations that we have seen since September 11 is that firefighters, the most heroic imaginable, were climbing the stairs up, not hearing the calls from their comrades below that it was time to evacuate. Mayday calls that should have been assigned to firefighters to get out were never heard by the firefighters because the hard-wiring in the building was not sufficient to install repeaters. Finally, we may need to learn something about roof access to these buildings. Who knows what might have been possible. We know that hundreds of people perished that day because they went up to the roof seeking a way out. As a matter of fact, early on there were reports that some of the dispatchers who were getting the calls were advising people to do that, all of the things we may learn for future investigations. But there is one other fact we must not forget, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) pointed it out, that this bill would not have happened, simply put, would not have happened had it not been for families of victims and interested Americans coming to us and saying in the midst of all of the difficult things that we have to do as a Congress and efforts to secure our homeland, let us not forget that we need to do an investigation about why those buildings came down. Frankly, it was the impetus of the Skyscraper Safety Campaign that made this bill a reality. It would not have become a reality had the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) not taken it up, and not taken it up with such dignity and speed, and his staff had not been so proficient in doing it, including Mike Quear on our side of the aisle, Geoffrey Hockert and Lamar Robertson on my staff. Frankly, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) has shown us the way to get this stuff done. Many of us are standing here after September 11 and wondering why so many of the obvious things are taking longer than we thought. Perhaps if the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) was the chairman of all of the committees, and I am not sure that I would wish that on the gentleman, but perhaps it would move quicker. Secondly, it is undeniably a fact that if we did not have the NTSB as a model, this would have taken a lot longer. The NTSB has shown us the way in the way that they investigate airline crashes, the way they sequester information, and take control of a scene as if it were a crime scene. They always get their man. They have virtually 100 percent success rate of coming to conclusions about why planes crash. We use that as a model to help this bill. Madam Speaker, I strongly urge the President to give this the attention it deserves by having a ceremony when he signs this bill. I thank Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton for being so expeditious in their consideration. This is legislation that hopefully we will never see put into place. There should never again be, God willing, the type of catastrophic building collapse as we saw in New York on the morning of September 11; but if there is, we should learn from it. And, as importantly, we hope with this legislation we give the tools to investigators to learn everything possible to learn about the causes of the September 11 collapse. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I want to thank him for being such a driving force behind this effort to pay tribute to New York and our country on the 6th. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for all he has done, not just to make this event a reality, but frankly to make our world a safer place. In his years here in the House of Representatives, no Member has devoted more energy to spreading American values and to finding out ways to make our world safer, and I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and all of the Republican leadership who have been so responsive to our community at this time. Sometimes there are not a lot of Republicans in some corners of New York City, but I think we have been bipartisan in our effort to recover. Many people, many Members of Congress visited New York City in the days right after September 11; and I want to tell my colleagues the New York they are going to visit on September 6 could not be more different than what they saw. If my colleagues saw destruction on that day, well, when they return on the 6th they are going to see determination. They are going to see massive rebuilding going on. They are going to see a debate that might make a person scratch his head, where New Yorkers are complaining that the buildings that are going to rise on that site and the tribute to be paid on that site are not grand enough; that when people thought perhaps the terrorists would force us to cower and be afraid to be in tall buildings, now proposal after proposal that comes out of the Lower Manhattan Redevelopment Corp., everyone seems to be saying the same thing: we want to build grander and grander than we even had it before. My colleagues might have found on September 11 and the days right after people were a little fearful about what would happen next. My colleagues will find nothing but heroism today. We see young people from all around New York City signing up to volunteer to be firefighters, to pay tribute to those heroes from September 11. We see a renewed sense of commitment to public service in New York City that defies any sense of fear that might have come from the days immediately following. My colleagues may expect that that sense or kind of pessimism that had emerged right after September 11 and many of us visited, many of my colleagues were there to see, does not exist today. Today it is nothing but optimism. Shops are reopening. Performances are booming on Broadway. We have homes being rebuilt. We have the, as much as it pains to say this, the Yankees are playing good baseball and even the Mets are showing signs of life at this point in the season. As my colleagues were there on September 11 and frankly those of us who are still in a period where there was great deal of mourning, there is also celebration today. We are celebrating all kinds of things. We are celebrating, as I said, more development than we have seen. People are investing in New York City, and we are seeing, as my colleagues might have expected or perhaps not, in the period about 9 months after September 11 we have an explosion of children being born in New York City. Can there be any tribute to our optimism greater than that? So when we return to New York City, we return not as an act of mere commemoration. It is indeed a celebration. We are celebrating our democracy. We are celebrating our resilience; and above and beyond that, we are celebrating our national victory over fear and over the terrorists. Here we will stand 1 year after an attack that seemed to be almost debilitating, and we will find that it takes more than just a body shot to our national psyche to keep us down. We have returned better than ever, and I want to thank all of my colleagues for joining us in New York City to celebrate that fact.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for all the excellent work they have done on this bill. It is an excellent bill. It contains aid for New York City, contains aid for our allies, but perhaps troubling, it also contains aid for our enemies. Quietly and without any floor debate, $50 million is included in this bill for aid to the West Bank in Gaza. This is on top of more than $100 million that has gone to the Palestinians since 1999. In that same time period, 577 Israelis and dozens of American citizens have died in over 50 homicide attacks in Israel. I support foreign aid. Foreign aid exports are values. It buys cooperation overseas. It makes tense areas of our world more peaceful, but on every level, Palestinian aid has failed in those fundamental values. Rather than promoting our values, the people of Nablus were cheering on September 11 when captured by TV cameras. Rather than buying cooperation, money that we have provided has found its way to be producing suicide belts, according to some of the documents seized at the Ramallah compound. Rather than making the world more peaceful, the Palestinians have used the money to import arms from Iran. I believe that we should vote yes on this bill. I believe we should vote yes on future foreign aid bills, but I also think it is time we had a debate on the floor of this House with an up or down vote on whether or not we should continue to provide aid for the West Bank and Gaza.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) for his leadership on our side of the aisle, and I want to join in the words he had to say about the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). The chairman has led this committee with great dignity and pursued this issue with thoroughness and with a great compassion and respect for the families of the victims who came to this committee and came to this Congress with a very reasonable request, and that is that we try to do what we can to make buildings safer in the future. I also want to thank Mike Quear, and Geoff Hockert of my staff, who helped draft this bill. Mr. Chairman, no one would dispute that the attack on the World Trade Center could not have been anticipated. In many respects, one can only marvel at the skill of the designers of the Twin Towers and the workmanship of thousands of nameless steelworkers and laborers. Thousands of families will enjoy dinner together tonight because, even under the most unimaginable circumstances, these proud buildings stood tall for more than an hour. But for the families of those lost, this testament offers little consolation and leaves many questions about the causes of the collapse unanswered. And, sadly, because of the early missteps in the investigation, some of the most vexing questions may never be unraveled. Thousands of tons of steel were carted away from Ground Zero and were recycled before any expert could examine what could have been telltale clues. Support trusses, fireproofing fragments, and even burnt-out electrical switches that might have given scientists and engineers insight were lost forever, even before an investigation was underway. These failures mean that we are, even to this day, short on conclusions about design decisions that may have contributed to the deaths of so many firefighters and workers on the top floors. Should future building avoid the concentration of stairwells that was used in the Twin Towers? Was enough attention given to the communications infrastructure that failed in the 1993 bombing, and tragically left hundreds of emergency workers climbing stairs up while officials on the ground knew that the buildings were about to come down? Did the fireproofing separate from the steel beams because of the intense heat, or did the design of the post-asbestos treatment that is in place in thousands of buildings in this country fail for other reasons? We cannot bring back those that were lost on September 11, and today there are more than 25,000 mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, husbands, wives, and loved ones that we thank God escaped that day. But if we want to ensure that the legacy of this tragedy is that future building collapses are avoided or mitigated, we need to do a better job investigating the causes. We pray that no other plane ever crashes into a tall building. And we hope that an earthquake never rattles our Nation's high-rises. We remain vigilant against threats of a bomb in our city centers. But just as we are not satisfied to hope that another plane does not crash, we need to create an investigative team like the NTSB, like the National Transportation Safety Board, to jump into action to investigate building collapses, protect and preserve evidence, issue regular briefings and reach conclusions that formalize standards of building design, egress and emergency escape. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), whose leadership on this issue has provided comfort to so many victims, and I have worked closely to craft legislation to create this authority. I call particular attention to two reforms contained in this bill. First, just as the NTSB immediately sequesters evidence involved in a plane crash, our bill creates immediate onsite authority for investigators of building collapses to have access and preservation of important materials. And if necessary, the new panel may subpoena materials. Never again will we see the destruction of material and the legal jousting that marked the scene of the September 11 attack, where even the blueprints of the building were kept from investigators and took weeks to secure. Secondly, the bill encourages the national construction safety teams to make recommendations to improve the design of buildings, evacuation and emergency plans, and I hope give localities guidance to avoid the tragic pitfalls in communication that befell so many in the World Trade Center. We cannot mitigate the tragedy that befell so many of my neighbors. Families of the victims, particularly Sally Regenhard and the others of the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, have asked that we do what we can to give meaning to their loss. Today, we pay tribute to those who perished at Ground Zero by taking another step to ensure that we learn the lessons of our past. One thing is certain, we will not stop reaching for the heavens in our lives or in our buildings.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) for helping bring this bill to the floor. We do not have to look far into the realm of the hypothetical to see why this bill was necessary. When anthrax was found at the NBC building at New York City several months ago, the Department of Health was not notified. The New York City Police Department was not notified. In fact, the Police Commissioner and the Mayor found out by watching television news. We do not know to this day why local authorities were not notified, but we can figure it out by reading the current law of the land. We can figure out it was probably a Federal agency, probably the FBI that was notified, and since they might have found out about this information via a wiretap or grand jury testimony, they were prohibited by the law of the land from even letting New York City know. Imagine if it were even worse than that anthrax attack. Imagine if in the course of a wiretap about some other related case, someone says, ``This deal is going to go down tomorrow in the New York City subway system. We are going to release sarin gas,'' or ``We are going to try to derail a train.'' Can you imagine if it were the FBI alone, since they gathered the information and were prohibited by law in the way they gathered it, going into every subway station and trying to figure out where they should be to try to stop this? They could not call the New York City mass transit authority, they could not call the transit authority police that have been responsible for driving crime down in the City of New York subways. They would have had to go down and try to figure out a way to navigate that threat on their own. There is a reason, perhaps, that these prohibitions were in place. Maybe there is a concern, and it is a legitimate one, about having information that comes as very sensitive falling into the wrong hands. That is why the bill that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) have drafted is smart by saying that the Attorney General does not have to turn over every piece of information, does not have to say, ``Well, we have a box of grand jury information. Let's give it to every sheriff's department that might be so implicated,'' but it does at least allow them to do it if need be. Mayor Giuliani before he left office approached this Congress and spoke publicly about the need to have this information in certain circumstances. He said, ``We need the information, and we need it right away. Otherwise, we are going to make a terrible, critical mistake.'' What Mr. Giuliani was talking about is a mistake of omission, excluding from the chain of information people who needed the information. I share the concerns that some raised in committee that we do not want this information to chip away at the confidentiality of the grand jury. We do not want wiretap information falling into the wrong hands. But at the very least, if someone runs into the Attorney General's office with a hot piece of information of an impending threat, I would hate to have the Attorney General's counsel say, ``Boss, you can't let the City of New York know about this. You can't let the City of Detroit know about this. You can't let a locality that might need to know about this know about it.'' This is what this seeks to address. There has been a great deal of talk about the way we need to get different levels of government connecting the various dots. This piece of legislation does it better than anything we have done yet to date.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, on June 11, 1982, during a battle with Syrian and Palestinians forces on the Israeli-Lebanese border, five Israeli soldiers were captured by Syrian forces. Several years later, two of the captured soldiers were returned to Israel in prisoner exchanges with Syria. But today, twenty years later, we still know nothing of three of these soldiers, Zachary Baumel, Tzvi Feldman, and Yehuda Katz. One of these soldiers, Zachary Baumel, is a U.S. citizen, and a former resident of my congressional district. On a number of occasions, I have met with Zachary's parents, and listened to them tell me of the years of effort to gain any information about their son. For the most part, this has been a fruitless quest. But the greatest injustice is not that they have been unable to discover any information about the well-being of their son. The greatest injustice is that there are those out there who know where Zachary is, and yet, they refuse to share this information. Mr. Speaker, the United States must not permit those who know the whereabouts of Zachary Baumel to keep this information to themselves. In 1993, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat delivered one-half of Zachary Baumel's dog tag to Israeli Government. Clearly he has a connection to those who are holding him, yet he has done nothing to assist in bringing Zach home. Mr. Speaker, we must increase the pressure on Syria, Iran and the Palestinian Authority and any other nation that has information regarding these prisoners. That is why I, along with the Gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos, have led a coalition of members in sending a letter, which I will submit for publication in the Congressional Record, to the Secretary of State, urging him to raise this matter with Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Shara when he comes to Washington later this month. Mr. Speaker, this nightmare has lasted long enough, it's time to bring Zachary Baumel and all of the other missing Israeli soldiers home. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, June 7, 2002. Secretary Colin L. Powell, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Powell: Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Shara is scheduled to meet with you in Washington, D.C. this week. You may be aware that his visit will coincide with the 20th anniversary of the capture of American citizen and Israeli soldier Zachary Baumel who, along with four other Israeli soldiers, was taken captive on June 11, 1982 during battles with Syrian forces near the Lebanese village of Sultan Ya'akub. We urge you to take advantage of the concurrence of these events to reinvigorate efforts to obtain information regarding the whereabouts of these and other missing Israeli soldiers, and to secure their release. Since the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, more than four hundred Israeli soldiers have been declared ``Missing in Action'' (MIA). Only six of these cases are officially listed as ``soldiers missing but presumed to be alive.'' Three of the soldiers: Zachary Baumel, Tzvi Feldman and Yehuda Katz were captured in 1982. The fourth, Ron Arad, was captured in 1986. Recently, two more names were added to the list of the missing; on August 17, 1997, Guy Hever went missing from his army base in the Golan; on October 15, 2000, Hizbullah announced that another Israeli citizen, 54 year-old Elchanan Tannenbaum (Col. res.), had also been taken captive. As you are no doubt aware, Public Law 106-89, authored by Congressman Lantos of California, directs the Department of State to raise the issue of missing Israeli soldiers with officials of Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority and other governments in the Middle East. It specifies that US aid to these governments should take into consideration their willingness to assist in locating and securing the return of these soldiers. It also directs the Department of State to report to Congress on these efforts. We hope that you will use the occasion of your meeting with Foreign Minister Shara to further the goals of Public Law 106-89. If the Syrian government is to become a responsible member of the international community, it must take all necessary measures to provide the fullest possible accounting for Zachary Baumel and all other Israeli hostages held under Syrian control. We urge you to convey this message to the Syrian Foreign Minister and to redouble your efforts to secure the long overdue release of these soldiers. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to your response. Sincerely, Anthony D. Weiner; Tom Lantos, Benjamin A. Gilman; Henry A. Waxman; Janice D. Schakowsky; Eliot L. Engel; Carolyn B. Maloney; Nita M. Lowey; Gary L. Ackerman; Shelley Berkley; Jerrold Nadler; Robert Wexler; Barney Frank; Eric Cantor; James R. Langevin; Peter Deutsch; Howard L. Berman; Steve Israel; Tammy Baldwin; Joseph Crowley; Adam B. Schiff; Benjamin L. Cardin; Jim Saxton.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 25th birthday of Israeli MIA Guy Hever. This is the fifth consecutive year that the Hever family has marked this occasion since Guy disappeared after leaving his base in the Golan in August 1997. While Israeli authorities have been unable to unearth any substantive clue as to Guy's fate, there is growing suspicion that the answers lie in Syria. The Syrians to date, have refused to answer any questions on the topic. Syria's reticence in this matter comes as no surprise. Over the past twenty years Syrian intransigence has obstructed the efforts of the international community to resolve the cases of both Arabs and Jews who have been held captive in Syria and in Lebanon under Syrian control. In particular, American efforts to secure the release of American citizen, and my former constituent, Zachary Baumel, have been repeatedly stymied by Damascus since his capture in a battle with Syrian forces in 1982. The Hevers and the other MIA families have not given up hope that their loved ones will come home alive, nor should they. Given Syria's record of holding prisoners incommunicado for as long as twenty years before releasing them, it is not at all inconceivable that live Israelis are being held under Syrian tutelage. Mr. Speaker, our government should be far more aggressive in demanding the release of Israel's missing men. Israel, the only true democracy in the Middle East, is our closest ally in that region. In 1991, when Americans were held hostage in Lebanon, Israel went to extraordinary lengths to help secure the release of those hostages. As Syria and others in the region who have benefitted from American aid and military assistance equivocate as to whether to assist America in its war on international terror, Israel has always been by our side. Israel's steadfast reliability as an ally should not be forgotten. The time has come Mr. Speaker, to strike a blow at the hostage industry that Syria and its terrorist proxies have utilized so effectively against Israel and the West over the past twenty years. The events of September 11th have made it abundantly clear to Americans that yesterday's terror in Israel will become tomorrow's tragedy in America--unless we act. And if we allow Syria or other states to remain unaccountable for holding Israeli hostages, we are simply inviting more hostage taking in the Middle East and throughout the world. We cannot be complacent--if Elchanan Tannenbaum, an Israeli taken hostage by Hizbullah in October 2000, can be abducted from Europe, so can any American citizen. If Guy Hever, who was reportedly last seen near the Syrian border, can disappear off the face of the earth without a trace, so can any American traveling in the Middle East. Unless we act more forcefully, Zachary Baumel will not be the last American hostage to be held in Lebanon or Syria, and in the aftermath of September 11th, we will not be able to claim that it could not be foreseen. Mr. Speaker, in 1999 I cosponsored HR 1175--A Bill to Locate and Secure the Release of Zachary Baumel an American Citizen and other Israeli Soldiers Missing in Action. The bill was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton. But not enough has been done to ensure compliance with the legislation. H.R. 1175 is the law and it must be upheld. This June, as Syria assumes the rotating Presidency of the United Nations Security Council and Zachary Baumel marks the twentieth anniversary of his capture, I urge the President to stringently apply the provisions of H.R. 1175, which is now Public Law 106-89. I also call on my colleagues to support the Syrian Accountability Act, which will force Syria to end its role in the taking and holding of hostages. And I call on the leadership of this House to bring this bill to a vote. At this time I also ask my colleagues to join me in support of Guy's parents Rina and Eitan, and Guy's twin siblings Shir and Or, who continue to turn over the world in search of information regarding Guy. Their nobility and determination during these five sleepless years of doubt and terror, should be matched by our own vigilance in enacting initiatives to deprive terrorists and their sponsors of this most cruel weapon of kidnaping. Guy Hever--Eifo Ata? (Where are you, in Hebrew.)

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, permit me to pay tribute to an individual who has dedicated her life to helping others. Jon Ann Shapiro has been a civic leader for most of her adult life and has lived her life by the axiom ``Help people. Help those without a voice. Help those who no one else would have the compassion to assist.'' Honored Tuesday in New York Newsday's Queens Profile for her work with the local chapter of the American Cancer Society, the Kiwanis Club and other community and political organizations, she has helped improve the quality of life of my constituents in the Rockaways, Broad Channel, Howard Beach and Ozone Park. Last year, as chairwoman of the annual Relay for Life event, she helped raise $70,000 for cancer research. In her capacity as chief of staff to Assemblywoman Pheffer, she has further dedicated herself to serving the community, and helping constituents in need of assistance. I rise today to thank Jo Ann and congratulate her for her many accomplishments. Mr. Speaker, allow me to submit for the Record Tuesday's New York Newsday's Queens Profile which further details Jo Ann's many contributions to our community. [From New York Newsday, May 21, 2002] Newsday Queens Profile--Jo Ann Shapiro (Sheila McKenna) Role--Chief of staff for Assemblywoman Audrey Pheffer (D- Rockaway Beach); chairwoman for the American Cancer Society's Relay for Life, June 8-9 at Beach Channel High School; past president of Kiwanis Club of Rockaway; member of St. Rose of Lima R.C. Church in Rockaway Beach. Biography--42; native of Plainview, L.I., graduate of SUNY- Old Westbury, changed careers from a paraprofessional for the Board of Education to work for Pheffer, a longtime friend, in 1987; single and has lived in a co-op in Rockaway Beach two years. Impact--``Ultimately, the goal of the event is to raise money, but it is secondary to what we accomplish in terms of bringing a community together. Relay for Life is really a celebration of those who are currently battling cancer--those who have been successful in their fight against cancer--and in recognition and remembrance of those who have not been successful.'' Current Focus--``Relay for Life is an overnight event, and we ask that participants give up one night of sleep. Cancer is a disease that never sleeps, and we ask that for one night, people join us, and if they can't do that, they join us for as much as they want. It's kind of an outdoor pajama party, people bring tents and camp. It's a big sleepover party with games, music, entertainment, scavenger hunt, we even have movies at midnight. This is our second annual event in Rockaway--last year, we raised $70,000.'' Why She's Involved--``American Cancer Society's goal is to eliminate cancer as a health care concern for the people of the United States. How could I not be a part of something like that? For information, call 1-800-ACS-2345.''