Anthony Weiner

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, Lewis Carroll wrote about a language where down is up, black is white as jabberwocky, and some of the opponents of this resolution are engaged in it today. The very distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) talks about the despair of the Palestinian people as if it is a rationale for dynamite laced with nails in the middle of a busy square in front of a pizzeria and an ice cream parlor, as if the slaughter of innocents is somehow a legitimate form of political speech. My friend from California says, oh, we have got the wrong villain. It is not the Palestinian Authority, it is not Arafat, it is Hamas, and if only you give him the chance and the tools to stamp out Hamas, he can do it. Well, he asked for control of the territories. The Palestinian Authority has it; 95 percent of those that live in the territories are under Palestinian control. He says, I need a police force to control violence. The Israelis gave him a police force, gave him guns, gave those fighting against them guns. He said, that is not enough. He said, I need a list of the terrorists. Well, the Israelis gave him that, too. They refuse to arrest them, and then they go and slaughter innocents. We cannot have it both ways. Some say Arafat is powerless. Well, if he is powerless, let us adopt President Bush's admonition and toss him upon the dust heap of history; and if he is powerful enough to be a partner for peace, let me ask why is it in his entire history he has not given a single speech in Arabic telling his people that it is time to live in peace with Israel. Not a single one. Ask him why it is that he has never stopped educating the young people in the Palestinian territories to hate from their very youngest age. He even stopped a program called Seeds of Peace which let young people from Israel and from the territories get together and share their common interests. On September 11, we in the United States learned what it was like to live in Israel. We would not think of saying to Osama bin Laden, well, let us negotiate, let us take it easy, let us give him a chance. We would never think about giving them Texas and Louisiana if only they would go away. We would never think of that then. We should not even consider that today. We should pass this very strong resolution, and we should do even more in the future. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this issue. And at the risk of doing harm to them politically, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) for their great leadership on this issue. We passed Public Law 107-38, and it says $20 billion shall be expended in New York. It does not say anywhere ``eventually,'' it does not say anywhere ``someday,'' and it does not say anywhere ``when we get to it.'' It was an allocation of funds for this year. It is the law. This should not be misunderstood. It was not an optional thing. It was not ``maybe we will do it.'' It is the law. We made a commitment to do it; and, frankly, the President of the United States looked us in the eye and gave us that commitment. But there is a myth that has been perpetuated here today that, well, New York has gotten everything that it has asked for. Well, that is baloney. New York has gotten together, and Governor Pataki has asked, Mayor Giuliani has asked, Republicans have asked, and Democrats have asked how to spend that $20 billion; unemployment benefits, extension of COBRA, Workmen's Comp., extension of tax credits to redevelop lower Manhattan. We have asked. It is not coming. Finally, we have heard on some level the words have been to ``trust us.'' And, frankly, we do. Chairman Young has been great on this stuff. And, to be honest, New York has lost a little bit of its swagger. We have been hit with a couple of body blows. But all we are saying now is that this is the time. There will be other emergencies, there will be other urgent needs, and there will be other things this country will face. If anthrax did not teach us, nothing will. This is a time when New York needs it. This is a time when New York has been promised. We trust this House will do the right thing, and the right thing is to pass the Lowey-Sweeney amendment.

Mr. WEINER

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

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I thank both of my colleagues for their kindness and the great support this body has shown for those of us in New York since September 11. Monsignor Martin Geraghty is the pastor of St. Francis deSales Church, right down the block from where this horrible plane crash occurred. When he spoke recently to E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post, he said, ``You can deconstruct everything except suffering.'' We here today on the floor of the House do not seek to make sense of this horrible incident that occurred, but we do seek to express our great condolences to the 265 souls who were on board that plane, and to those folks in Rockaway who have endured so very much. Tomorrow there will be a funeral for the Concannons, a couple that lived on East 131st Street. Sadly, it is not the first of funerals we have had recently in reaction to horrible tragedies. St. Francis deSales Church lost about 30 members of its parish, and as many as 20 of them firefighters lost on September 11. When this horrible accident occurred on November 12, it could not, in an odd way, have happened in a better place. If we are going to have a first responder emergency that relies on the heroism of the people in the community, Rockaway is the place we want to have it. On November 12, just like on September 11, my neighbors, people in Rockaway, retired firefighters, off-duty firefighters, police officers, port authority policemen, EMTs, ran out of their homes. I spoke to the head of Peninsula Hospital at the end of the day, that horrible day, and I asked, how many injuries did you have? He said, we had about 40 people come through our doors. I asked if they were firefighters. He said just about every one of them were, but only a few of them were on duty. People came in in their tee shirts and jeans because they ran out of their houses to save their neighbors. Mr. Speaker, this is a community that every day looks up to the heavens, sometimes in praise of God Almighty, but sometimes to look at the planes flying low overhead. I do not think anyone in our community will ever look at those planes overhead the same way. This has been an instance that has shaken us. As I have said before, it is almost as if it was an aftershock to an earthquake that happened on September 11. But as horrible as the incident was, it once again reminded us in New York City and in our country of our common humanity. About as far away as one can possibly get from Belle Harbor, Queens, is the community in upper Manhattan in Washington Heights where many of the relatives of many of those flying on this plane lived. I must confess, there is not a great deal that the people in the Dominican communities of Washington Heights have in common with the Irish, Italian, and Jewish community of Rockaway, but on November 12, we were reminded once again what is great about New York City and what is great about our country. We come here with great hopes, with great aspirations, and we find them in New York City. When there are catastrophies like struck us on September 11 and November 12, we are reminded again what we have in common. What we have in common on this day is that families in Washington Heights and in Rockaway are going to sit down to dinner with an empty seat at the table. They are going to go to worship at Sunday mass or this Saturday at shul and they are going to mourn for those that have been lost in the last couple of months. We have a common bond in this country. It is that we are common in the humanity that we have. So all of us in Rockaway send our sincere condolences to those that lost their lives on this plane. We share with those families that are still mourning September 11, and we join in paying our great thanks to those Members of this House who have shown such great support to New York City. This is a time of national mourning, but it is a time of particular mourning to those of us in New York City. Mr. Speaker, I will include in the Record not only Mr. Dionne's editorial about the Rockaways but two that were written by Michael Daly of the Daily News which capture the essence of that great community. [From the Washington Post, Nov. 13, 2001] Unshakable Rockaway (By E.J. Dionne, Jr.) Our family has a love affair with a star-crossed little neighborhood at the edge of New York City. In our house, ``Rockaway'' is a magic word. Going to Rockaway means seeing grandma and aunts and uncles and ``the cousins.'' A passel of kids of varying ages, the cousins love playing baseball in the front yard, romping on the beach just two blocks away, or exploring what's left of the Fort Tilden gun emplacements that overlook the Atlantic Ocean. The guns were put there to fight Nazis who many feared would come across the sea during World War II. Fortunately, the Nazis never came. Now the neighborhood faces troubles no one ever imagined. The television screen Monday morning cut suddenly to a city block we know and cherish. The flames were ripping through houses and buildings two doors down from my brother-in-law's home. We knew my mother-in-law was in church at the time of the crash--she goes to the 9 a.m. Mass every day at St. Francis de Sales, about a block from where some of the plane fragments hit. We learned, courtesy of a live interview with Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, that the church was okay. We appreciated that, Mr. Mayor. Grandma finally got through to us. She and the rest of the family were okay too. Giuliani said he remembered the church because of the many funerals and memorial services he had attended there since Sept. 11. You see, Rockaway, and in particular the Belle Harbor section that was struck on Monday, had already suffered mightily in the World Trade Center disaster. It's a neighborhood full of firefighters and upwardly mobile, middle-class people, so many of whom had moved across the Gil Hodges Bridge from working-class sections of Brooklyn. Many found good jobs in the financial boom of the 1990's and worked in the trade center. To call this neighborhood old-fashioned is both true and misleading. True because the prevailing values really are old-fashioned. Misleading because everyone is acutely aware that it takes hard work and careful adjustment to keep old values alive in the year 2001. People in Belle Harbor don't much debate a word like ``communitarian.'' They don't have to. That's just what these people are. I know from family experience that when a neighbor gets sick, whole blocks mobilize instantly. Food just shows up. Baby sitters suddenly materialize. The invitation for a drink at the Harbor Light, a friendly establishment smack in the path of Monday's devastation, comes right on time. The word gets out fast. Nobody ever asks questions. Nobody thinks about being paid back. Everybody knows the same comfort will be available for them when they need it. Firefighters are as thick on the ground as steelworkers once were in Pittsburgh or stockbrokers still are in Brooklyn Heights. It's work that's often passed down from father to son. Few professions fit the neighborhood better: a marriage of family values with public service. Their attitude fits too--tough on the outside, romantic on the inside. The funny thing about this neighborhood is that for all the ties of clan and ethnicity and faith--most of the neighbors we know are Irish, with a sprinkling of Italians, and Catholic--there is a kind of open welcome you don't run into everywhere. Many people who don't know the place think this is an attitude foreign to New York City. It isn't. My son loves the neighborhood because he can hit the streets and within five minutes be brought into a game of basketball or beach baseball or whatever else is going on. He's not an outsider. He's a kid, he's Brian's cousin, he's an honorary neighbor. That's why it was so painful to watch this neighborhood in flames. Why so much trouble has come so fast to one small place I cannot explain. All I know is that it's a place that knows how to pull together and get dinner to the household down the street where no one is home to cook. Maybe it goes through hard times because it is so naturally gifted at dealing with them. A few weeks back, I was talking with Monsignor Martin Geraghty, the pastor of St. Francis de Sales, about his neighborhood's troubles. He's a deeply thoughtful man, a neighborhood intellectual who never flaunts how smart he is. He spoke of the academic trend to deconstruct, and thus explain away, anything. ``You can deconstruct everything,'' he said, ``except suffering.'' I don't envy Monsignor Geraghty's task of explaining to the good people of this exceptional neighborhood why the inexplicable keeps happening to them.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in my District on Tuesday, November 13, 2001, and I would like the Record to indicate how I would have voted had I been present. For rollcall vote No. 436, the conference report for the Agriculture appropriations act for fiscal 2002, I would have voted ``aye.'' For rollcall vote No. 437, a bill to enhance the authorities of special agents and provide limited authorities to uniformed officers responsible for the protection of domestic Department of State occupied facilities, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise and I speak to some in this body who share my view that the Senate bill, arguably, does not go far enough. And I speak to some in this body who recognize the great work that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) did to cobble a compromise that everyone can rally around. Those are good reasons for us to step back, go back to the drawing board, and perhaps return with our original bill, if for no other reason than we are going to conference with the other body and it seems insane we are here negotiating with ourselves. But let us think of some of the things that were in the bill that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) wrote that are not in today. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) offered language that would track money launderers. Out of the bill. I think it should be in. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) offered language, and I have trouble saying these words, that I agree with while in terms of tracking security officers. I offered language that was in the bill that would track people who come here on student visas and who overstay their visas and commit acts of violence, at least two of which were in that category that crashed into the World Trade Center in my hometown. My colleagues, I have been to too many vigils, too many funerals, held too much hands of grieving families in my district to be satisfied with a bill that takes out so many of the provisions that we worked so hard for in the Committee on the Judiciary. There are many reasons why we should offer a motion to recommit, some of which are those which are shared by my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who believes this bill goes too far. But there are also reasons, I say to all of my colleagues, for those who think we have watered down these efforts too far, to put back in some of the thoughtful provisions that the House Committee on the Judiciary put in. There is no good reason not to recommit. There is going to be a conference on this bill. Why not go in with our strongest possible negotiating position, including the Hyde language, the Barr language, and the Weiner language that I would say would pass this House with 350 votes.

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

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to be associated with the second best team in New York. It is also my pleasure to join with two- thirds of the People-Named-Miller caucus here in Congress, actually over two-thirds, because the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) is a pretty big fellow. I have to say to my colleagues, I support agriculture programs. I voted for every agriculture bill, and I believe it is very important for coalitions to be formed in this body between urban Members, who probably are only consuming agriculture product, and their rural counterparts, because it is an important part of the stream. But just as my colleagues on all sides of the aisle have demanded accountability from urban programs, I think it is fair that we demand the same accountability here. This amendment does not seek to end the program, simply to amend the program. I have to tell Members that I do not mind the fact that is a $465 million program. That, to me, is not offensive. What is offensive is the additional cost to the taxpayers that are hidden. The gentleman from Florida just talked about the $1.9 billion annually that consumers pay for this program. That is putting aside the $1.4 million a month to store the sugar that is purchased and then held in essentially escrow to be paid back against the debts as part of this program. But I have to say that one of the things that leads me to be so strongly in favor of the Miller and Miller amendment is the experience of the Madeline Chocolate Novelties Company in Rockaway, New York in my district. It is not a mammoth company by any stretch of the imagination. They employ about 500 people. But the reason they do not employ more people, they say, is their inability to export more of their products. They do not manufacture chocolate, they create novelty chocolate products like the kind we customarily would get at Easter and in my district at Passover. But they estimate there is about a 10 percent difference in the price of the chocolate that they buy because of this program and this program alone. They travel around to international trade shows, they contact me for help with international export programs. The fact of the matter is this program and this program alone has meant jobs in my district.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his remarks. In my district in Rockaway, in St. Frances DeSales, over 30 families of firefighters are praying today that their loved ones will be returned home. In their prayers, they might not be saying the name of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), but on their behalf I want to offer my thanks for the great work that the chairman has done on behalf of all of those families. And on behalf of the literally hundreds of men and women who are on the bucket brigade by hand removing what is estimated to be 500,000 tons of debris trying to find survivors, on behalf of those people and others, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for how disciplined he has been and we have all been in trying to solve this problem quickly. On behalf of all of the families of those who have been lost, I express my great thanks to all the Members of this body. Their words are indeed comforting to them. But let us not misunderstand. This was not a successful attack on our country. Our financial services industry is going to be rebuilt stronger than ever. The physical structures in New York City are going to rise up. Our families are going to rise up. On behalf of our entire country, I say to the terrorists, they have not been successful, and today demonstrates that.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I offer the thanks of our city to the many Members of the House, particularly the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, who has spoken so eloquently. Many of us just returned this morning and more than a few of my constituents commented how heartening and reassuring it was to see Members come to the well yesterday for hours talking about their expressions of sympathy and support. My colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), and I late last night visited ground zero and we saw a sight that was at once horrific and frankly heartening. We saw mounds of rubble, maybe the size of this building, that were tombs for some of the bravest New Yorkers and bravest Americans. These were men who perished, many of them my constituents. Over 100 families in just one small part of my district were where firefighters and police officers had lived. At the same time people were furiously running downstairs to escape what was described in the newspapers as 1,000 to 2,000 degree heat, heat sufficient to melt the columns of the World Trade Center, to melt through the insulation on the beams. These firefighters were running up those stairs, as the chairman mentioned. Some of them were seen on the 80th floor. And to give my colleagues an idea of what a firefighter carries on his back and on his person when he goes into battle, it is weight akin to me. It is like carrying a human being all the way up those stairs. And they did so not because they were naive about the dangers that they faced; it is because they recognized the dangers that their fellow New Yorkers faced, and they were going to do everything possible to see them protected. We say it at times like this, that these are true heroes because they go to the most dangerous jobs without flinching. But to be honest, everywhere in this country, every night as we lay down our heads to sleep and we tuck our children in and we say our evening prayers and we think about what we are going to do the following day, at those very same hours there are men and women all over this country who stay up all night waiting to hear a bell go off, or a siren go off; and then they run to help us. They do not know us. To see these men now at this site that are digging through this rubble, they are looking for their best friends, looking for their brothers, looking for their fathers in some cases. We lost one of the highest-ranking fire officials in the city. We lost a priest who serviced the men in the fire department when a body fell on him from stories above. These are people who every day do these things on our behalf. Their families send them off to work hoping that they will see them when they come back, and they do incredible work. Well, now, in New York City, we have over 300 families, by last count, who are not going to see their husbands, their fathers, their children again; and this is a measure that I think is needed in some small way to help expedite the benefits to these families. But make no mistake, my colleagues, the worst is yet to come for those families. We have an ability now, as we must, to try to do what we can to ease the suffering, and then we will go on. Our lives will be put back together again. We will remember those horrific images. I can say assure my colleagues of one thing, as Mayor Guiliani told us late last night, and we agree with 100 percent, and I speak for all of my New York colleagues, we are going to rebuild the city. We will be a better and stronger city, and we will be a better and stronger country. But those families have lost someone that they are not going to be able to replace. There is not a day that will go by that they will not remember that. And I also hope there is not a day that goes by that all of those survivors that got out of there, and who saw those men running up the stairs as they were running down, I hope they remember as well the great heroism. Tonight and nights after, as we retire for the evening and as we say a little prayer for the safety and health of our families, let us also say a prayer for those men and women that look over our shoulders every day in communities large and small all throughout this community. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. WEINER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my thanks to the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and all of the Members of this body who have demonstrated their support, and to all of their constituents throughout this country who have been deluging New Yorkers with their demonstrations of support. The stand we take here on behalf of firefighters is done so on behalf of all Americans. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the sponsor of the bill, for the purpose of allocating time.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the head of the Law Enforcement Caucus here in Congress.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the chairman of the subcommittee, and I believe if we had an allocation that was sufficient this subcommittee would not have chosen to make this cut. In the 1980s, we had a debate in this House and in this country about ways to make housing programs more efficient. I thought often that debate was mean-spirited. But the mantra was over and over again throughout those years, let us keep what is working and let us eliminate what is not. As a result, unfortunately, that meant cuts in the modernization program. It meant cuts in operating assistance. In 1988, Ronald Reagan famously said our barest responsibility to the residents of public housing is their safety, and the drug elimination program was born. Since that time, we have had nearly a 30 percent reduction in crime in public housing. The program has been a success. Now, you should not take my word for it, although when I was in the New York City Council I was the chairman of the Committee on Public Housing. Listen to what some Republicans have said. Listen to what Secretary Martinez said earlier this year in response to a question from a Member of the other body. ``HUD's Public Housing Drug Elimination Program supports a wide variety of efforts. Based on this core purpose, I certainly support the program.'' A short while ago the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) stood up to oppose this program. Let me tell you what he said on April 6 of the year 2000. ``If the public housing are unable to continue the drug prevention efforts, the problems will return. Will we only allow a doctor to give enough medicine to reduce illness, or will we give enough medicine to cure the disease?'' This is what he said in support of the program that supports public housing in Upland, California. We have also heard from the former chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach.) ``This type of program is necessary if we are to make public housing developments decent and safe communities.'' Mr. Lazio, the former Member of this House from my State, also said, ``The drug elimination program has funded many important and worthwhile items that have resulted in protecting people in public and assisted housing.'' For a moment I would like to address some of the criticisms to this program raised by the opponents of the gentlewoman from Ohio. First, it is that crime reduction is not the primary mission of HUD. True enough. But that does not mean we do not fund modernization programs for better security systems. It does not mean we do not fund modernization programs and operating assistance for security guards. It is absurd to say that simply because it is not our primary mission, that we should walk away from a program that works. Secondly, there is this weird Alice in Wonderland argument that says we are reinforcing the perception that drug problems are bad in public housing by having a program that has reduced crime problems in public housing. I can tell you as a matter of fact, in New York City we have something called the COMSTAT program where you can see block by block, address by address, where the crime problems are. Before the drug elimination program came into effect, there was a 30 percent difference the moment you crossed the street into public housing as opposed to the other way, and the reason is we used to have police precincts that were divided from the housing authority police division so we could see that. If you think that the program is not working, all you have to do is look at the State of Texas. In the State of Texas, in the Austin Housing Authority, they had a 10 percent reduction compared to outside the housing authority because of the drug elimination program. In San Antonio, there was a 31 percent reduction in crime in the housing authorities, while the crime outside the housing authorities went up. So we not only know as a matter of fact that there is a problem, but we also know as a matter of fact that the problem is being solved by the drug elimination program. Finally, because New York City has been mentioned so many times in a pejorative sense here, let me explain why it is that New York City is a slightly different creature than other places as it relates to the drug elimination program. Unlike other places that throughout the eighties were tearing down their public housing, New York City was investing in it, so much so that it not only did not neglect housing authorities, it created its own police department specifically for the housing authority projects, unlike other municipalities in this country. Later on, a decision was made under Mayor Giuliani, and, frankly, when I served on the city council, to merge the police departments; and the Housing Authority and HUD said, under Republicans and Democrats alike, that that does not mean that New York City should then have to walk away from the assistance it was getting, simply because it made its police department more efficient. One final point. This is the point about why there is so much money in the pipeline, and I tried to make the point earlier. We have a fundamental problem in this country, and we are seeing it in law enforcement programs throughout, that there is a backlog in the money we are allocating to police officers and when those dollars are hitting the streets. We saw that same spurious argument used against the COPS program, but every city supports it and, frankly, every Housing Authority supports this program.

Mr. WEINER. I would point out that many housing authorities around the country have a similar situation where drug elimination funds appear not to be spent because a large number of those dollars are used to recruit and hire police officers. As the gentleman knows, right now in the country we have a phenomenon from coast to coast that there is a decline in the number of people that are coming forward to take these positions. In most cases, New York City being one of them, those funds have already been allocated.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the sponsors and advocates of this bill. As we look around our communities, it is undeniable the best homeless facilities, drug treatment, even job training courses are not city and State run. They are run by churches and synagogues. The supporters of this bill are right. We ought not rule out a compassionate program simply because it is motivated by a calling from God. I do not support those who believe that this bill is the handiwork of the radical right. This is the product of a very real desire to replicate the great works that are quietly and effectively working all throughout this Nation. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) are decent and caring individuals who seek to do what is best. I will vote yes on this bill if we can make a much improved bill and perfect it further. First, let us restate what is the agreed-upon purpose of bill. Today, we vote to fund secular services in a nonreligious environment, no preaching, no proselytizing. It is right there in the bill. The bill, to its credit, makes that very clear. There is no reason to want to discriminate in hiring of a typing teacher or an after school art teacher. None of us would support such discrimination in these purely nonreligious environments. We should guarantee that this discrimination does not take place. To be clear, I strongly support Title 7 language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There is no reason to extend this protection to the programs we consider today. Secondly, I ask the sponsors, why should the passage of this effort drag down local and State human rights and anti-discrimination laws? It is ironic that many of the excellent and active religious organizations who support this bill were at the forefront of the laws that are being passed in the States and cities to protect the most vulnerable. As a former city councilman, I share the chagrin so often expressed by my conservative colleagues about the way we frequently trample on carefully considered local laws. There is no good reason to do that in this bill. When my colleagues advocate for the bill, I hear no good explanation for that preemption. Finally, as I said, I do not agree with the theorists that this bill is a subterfuge for a sinister agenda. Some have called me naive in that. Now after the bill was considered carefully and thoughtfully in two committees of this House, a new section was added which dramatically changes the way we administer virtually every social service program, every housing program, every anti-crime program by permitting a voucher-driven reorganization. Mr. Speaker, this broad administrative change that impacts $47 billion of grant programs has no place in this bill. Fortunately, I can and will vote for the Faith Based Initiative Bill today. I will be voting for the Rangel Conyers substitute which irons out the last of the wrinkles in this bill. It ensures the best of the desires of this house--increased Federal funding for local religious based programs. And it makes it clear what we already know--there will be no discrimination in hiring. It preserves state and local human rights laws. And it leaves the voucher debate for another day. Modest improvements that--if made--can make this a bill that unifies this body around the principles that unify this Nation.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. I will be glad to provide it for the gentleman. But one thing, and I would yield to anyone, since I have a couple of moments left, anyone that can point to a year the subsidy was in place that it did anything to reverse the trend. The trend has been consistent right along. The only time there has been a blip in the trend was 1997 and 1998 when the program was phased out momentarily. Then the losses were reduced. They did not gain, but the losses were reduced. So the argument for a program is not simply that I came up with a new rationale for it. I could do that for any program. The argument has to be, here is how it worked. And we have not seen any demonstration that it has worked. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak once again on the MAP program. One of the arguments that was made by my colleague from California is that, well, other countries are in a position that they can do this advertising and it has been advantageous to them. The fact of the matter is that our consumer marketplace encourages that type of advertisement to go on of our products that are here made domestically in the United States, irrespective of what is going on in Chile or what is going on in France. I do not believe that the United States taxpayer should be subsidizing these advertising programs because, in fact, what winds up happening is that much of this advertising, I would argue all of it that is subsidized by the MAP program, would go on anyway because of the decisions made by the industry; that it is in their interest to encourage this type of development. The MAP program is another example of a program where I do not see it is very easy for us to point to demonstrated areas where the advertising has led to any more farmers, any more ranchers, any more production or sales. I am firmly of the belief, and perhaps I am wrong on an economic level, that if the U.S. Government leaves this field it would quickly be occupied.