Anthony Weiner

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate amendments to H.R. 1658, and I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), our chairman, for his year-long effort to reform our asset forfeiture laws. The gentleman quite literally wrote the book on the subject. When the history is written of his prodigious work in this House, this certainly warrants mention. Last year, a somewhat divided House considered H.R. 1658. While it garnered the support of the majority of our colleagues, it was adamantly opposed by the administration, as well as by every major law enforcement group. Because of this opposition, I offered, along with the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), a substitute version of H.R. 1658 on the floor of the House. The substitute would have made needed reforms by placing the burden of proof on the Government to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that property seized was used in an illegal activity. It would have allowed for counsel to be appointed in those proceedings. It would have protected innocent owners, and it would have allowed property to be returned to claimants in instances of hardship. It was, I thought, a balanced approach that had the support of all major law enforcement organizations, as well as 155 of my colleagues. That amendment failed, although it had some support, and many of us voted against the base bill for that reason. Mr. Speaker, today's amendment, today's bill I am pleased to vote in favor of. It puts the burden of proof where it should be, on the Government; and it rightfully protects the owners and spouses and children, if they can show they were not involved in illegal activity. Perhaps, most importantly, today's bill has the approval of the men and women of law enforcement. Like our substitute, today's bill allows civil asset forfeiture to continue to be used as a tool by police and prosecutors across the country to shut down crack houses and seize drug-running speedboats. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the authors of this compromise and my colleagues who voted in favor of reform originally.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, it is truly heartening to sit on this floor and watch my colleagues on the other side of the aisle trip over themselves to embrace Project Exile and find a way to somehow do it without giving credit to the creators of the program. Project Exile, as we all know here, is a Clinton administration policy. It was put into place by a Clinton-appointed U.S. Attorney. There are good reasons why my friends are rushing to adopt Clinton's crime-fighting strategies. Simply put, they have been the most successful in history. Violent crime has dropped 20 percent between 1992 and 1998. Since 1993, funding for State and local law enforcement has increased by nearly 300 percent, due in large part to the crime bill that so many of my Republican friends oppose. Twenty-two percent more criminals are incarcerated for State and Federal weapons charges than when the Clinton administration took office. The number of prosecutions has increased by more than 34 percent under the Clinton administration. The bottom line is this chart. Since 1992, violent crimes with firearms have dropped precipitously under Bill Clinton and Janet Reno. But my friends, as they try to ride the Clinton coattails on crime, they have made some mistakes, some omissions. First, they have left out the other half of the crime-fighting plan, and that is reasonable gun control legislation, gun locks, an enhanced Brady law. I could not help noticing they also left out about 40 States. Surprise, Florida is not one of them. I am shocked that Texas is one of the States that is eligible. Apparently, if one's Governor is not named Bush, they really do not need to apply to this program this year. I just hope, Mr. Speaker, that when this Clinton Project Exile comes to Florida and comes to Texas, I hope Governor Jeb and Governor W. stand up and invite Janet Reno to the press conference, because she deserves the credit for the results.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, on March 30 the President and I made a Social Security policy announcement with senior citizens in my district. As a result, I was unable to vote in favor of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall 91, the Stearns amendment, no; on rollcall 92, the Paul amendment, no; on rollcall 93, the Tancredo amendment, no; on rollcall 94, on the Motion to Recommit, yes; and on rollcall 95, final passage, yes.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, this is the second time of this debate, and there has been clearly very deep divisions in this House about how to proceed with it; but, in fact, I think that when we get behind some of the details there is an enormous amount of consensus in this Nation on this issue. Despite the previous speaker's contention, there is very little debate about the idea that this procedure is one that the we should try to avoid. There is very little debate about the idea that abortions in general happen too frequently and we should try to reduce their numbers any way that we can. That is a righteous cause. That is something that we should pursue. That is why so many of us support the idea of increasing family planning and education and counseling. There is no doubt that it is desirable to reduce the number of abortions in this country. But there is also broad consensus in this country that the health and welfare of the woman is also something that needs to be protected. The Supreme Court spoke to this eloquently in that very difficult decision. Roe v. Wade did not set up a perfect system by any ways, but one thing the court did say very clearly was that the woman's right to her health and well-being exists throughout her pregnancy. When a recent poll was taken of the American people, even people who fervently believe that abortion was something that should be outlawed, they believed by numbers in the neighborhood of 80 percent that the woman's right to health should be included as an exception. So why is it that the majority in consideration of this bill has, not only said that they oppose that, but they said we will not even allow it to be considered on this House floor. They will not even allow an option to be brought before this House that might close some of these gaps, that might make it easier for those who agree with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) in his statements about how terrible this procedure is, give us an opportunity to form a bipartisan consensus to perhaps reduce the number of truly unnecessary abortions if they are existing. The reason was made clear earlier in the comments, eloquent and frank by one of the foremost leaders in this House against a woman's right to choose, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). He said it, he departed a little bit from the party line on this, but spoke frankly and earnestly. He said this is about getting the camel's nose under the tent. This is about starting the process of chipping away at a woman's right to choose her own health care, a woman's right to choose, a doctor's right to choose. He has been honest and frank about this that he believes there should be no abortions in this country, and this was the first step. This is why the American people see this effort today as being so pernicious. This is not about trying to find a solution to a difficult problem. This is about chipping away at a woman's right to health care. If we were truly going to be honest about this, we would say exactly what this is. This is a political exercise for the seventh time. This is not about finding that group that the Majority Leader eloquently spoke about. This is not about truly finding a solution to this problem because we had a vehicle to do that, and the Republicans opposed it. We should oppose this measure today, but we should make it clear that, if we protect a woman's right to choose, all of our minds are open.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues on the other side. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) argued persuasively that there are some very difficult issues to resolve here. And I think the forum to resolve these issues is in a conference committee where I believe, and many of my colleagues believe, that these issues will be resolved favorably to our interest. But I think that we have to be careful not to keep repeating things that are simply incorrect as an argument for not having the conference. The gentleman from Georgia repeats again and again this notion that is perpetrated by the NRA that enforcement is down. Simply not true. Unsubstantiated by the facts. Twenty-five percent increase in the Federal enforcement in the last year; a 7 percent reduction in violent crime in the last year alone. And the final proof in the pudding, if my colleagues do not want to compare it just year to year, there are 22 percent more people in prison for gun offenses today than there were in 1992. That is the fact of the matter. The National Rifle Association would like to repeat and repeat and repeat the big lie that these laws are not being enforced. They are being enforced more now than at any time in the last decade. So my colleagues can have many reasons to oppose the conference committee, but that ought not be one of them.

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

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Arkansas tell me at what point in all of that deliberation did the House express the notion that we should not even meet in conference; that we should not even discuss these items? There seemed to have been, I would agree with the gentleman, broad consensus.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month the Bay News in Brooklyn had this headline on their newspaper. It says, ``Get Gil In. Brooklynites Demand, Put Hodges in the Hall of Fame.'' Well, today, the veterans committee of major league baseball announced, once again, that Gil Hodges had been passed over. This is an outrage. In fact, we all know that Gil Hodges was the first major league player to ever hit four home runs in a game. And those of us who are Met fans know that he was the first Met to ever hit a home run and, of course, the manager of the ``Miracle Mets'' of 1969. But even the casual baseball fan knows that Gil Hodges deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. They know that he ranks 38 in home runs, with over 370; six seasons with 30-plus home runs. He hit twice, more than 40 home runs. He had a lifetime slugging percentage of nearly 500, and nine times he exceeded a 500 slugging percentage. He was a Gold Glove winner. He played on seven pennant winners and two World Series champions. He was a hero to the people of Brooklyn and a baseball player that deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. The Bay News said, ``Get Gil In.'' All Brooklynites agree. The Committee on Veterans Affairs' should heed that call.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an upstanding member of our community who is being recognized by the Brighton- Atlantic Unit #1671 of B'nai Brith on the occasion of its 1999 Youth Services Award Breakfast. Brian Lance Gotlieb has earned a well-deserved reputation as a tireless fighter on behalf of the youth in our community, and is rightfully honored for his achievements by B'nai Brith on this special occasion. Gotlieb, who serves as the liaison to Intermediate School 303 and Public Schools 90, 100, 209 and 253, is currently working on different ways to protect our community's children. As a member of the District 21 School Board, he has initiated the process of identifying unsafe streets throughout District 21 to ensure the safety of all pedestrians. And, throughout this school year, Gotlieb will be hosting a series of Child Safety Programs that will provide parents with free copies of their children's fingerprints along with Polaroid pictures to present to law enforcement personnel in the event of an emergency. Further, as my Deputy Chief of Staff, Brian Lance Gotlieb has served as my liaison to the Board of Education and School Construction Authority for the last three years. In addition, he is primarily responsible for the intake and resolution of constituent concerns in my Community Office located in the Sheepshead Bay section of Brooklyn. Gotlieb, who credits his late mother, Myrna, with teaching him the importance of helping others and being active in the community, created the highly successful organization Shorefront Toys for Tots in 1995. Founded in his mother's memory, Shorefront Toys for Tots has helped bring Chanukah cheer to more than 7,500 underprivileged children in the Shorefront community. As a student at the Rabbi Harry Halpern Day School and its Talmud Torah High School division, Gotlieb packed and delivered Passover packages to aid needy senior citizens. Gotlieb strengthened his bond with the Jewish community as an undergraduate and graduate student through his involvement with the Jewish Culture Foundation at New York University and B'nai B'rith Hillel at the University of Florida, where he served as a Reporter for the Jewish Student News. Gotlieb is a member of Community Board 13 and serves on it's Education and Library and Youth Services committees. He also serves his neighbors as a member of the Board of Directors in Section 4 of Trump Village and as an Executive Board member of the 60th Precinct Community Council. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the members of Brighton-Atlantic Unit #1671 of B'nai Brith for recognizing the achievements of Brian Lance Gotlieb, a tireless worker for the people of Brooklyn and Queens.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an upstanding member of our community who is being recognized by the Brighton- Atlantic Unit #1672 of B'nai Brith on the occasion of its 1999 Youth Services Award Breakfast. Brian Lance Gotlieb has earned a well-deserved reputation as a tireless fighter on behalf of the youth in our community, and is rightfully honored for his achievements by B'nai Brith on this special occasion. Gotlieb, who serves as the liaison to Intermediate School 303 and Public Schools 90, 100, 209 and 253, is currently working on different ways to protect our community's children. As a member of the District 21 School Board, he has initiated the process of identifying unsafe streets throughout District 21 to ensure the safety of all pedestrians. And, throughout this school year, Gotlieb will be hosting a series of Child Safety Programs that will provide parents with free copies of their children's fingerprints along with Polaroid pictures to present to law enforcement personnel in the event of an emergency. Further, as my Deputy Chief of Staff, Brian Lance Gotlieb has served as my liaison to the Board of Education and School Construction Authority for the last three years. In addition, he is primarily responsible for the intake and resolution of constituent concerns in my Community Office located in the Sheepshead Bay section of Brooklyn. Gotlieb, who credits his late mother, Myrna, with teaching him the importance of helping others and being active in the community, created the highly successful organization Shorefront Toys for Tots in 1995. Founded in his mother's memory, Shorefront Toys for Tots has helped bring Chanukah cheer to more than 7,500 underprivileged children in the Shorefront community. As a student at the Rabbi Harry Halpern Day School and its Talmud Torah High School division, Gotlieb packed and delivered Passover packages to aid needy senior citizens. Gotlieb strengthened his bond with the Jewish community as an undergraduate and graduate student through his involvement with the Jewish Culture Foundation at New York University and B'nai B'rith Hillel at the University of Florida, where he served as a Reporter for the Jewish Student News. Gotlieb is a member of Community Board 13 and serves on it's Education and Library and Youth Services committees. He also serves his neighbors as a member of the Board of Directors in Section 4 of Trump Village and as an Executive Board member of the 60th Precinct Community Council. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the members of Brighton-Atlantic Unit #1672 of B'nai Brith for recognizing the achievements of Brian Lance Gotlieb, a tireless worker for the people of Brooklyn and Queens.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The FBI is currently authorized to offer the superior training available at the FBI's National Academy only to law enforcement personnel employed by State or local units of government. However, police officers employed by railroads are not allowed to attend this Academy despite the fact that they work closely in numerous cases with Federal law enforcement agencies as well as State and local law enforcement. A recent example of this cooperative effort is the Texas railway killer case. Providing railroad police with the opportunity to obtain the training offered at Quantico would improve interagency cooperation and prepare them to deal with the ever-increasing sophistication of criminals who conduct their illegal acts either using the railroad or directed at the railroad or its passengers. Railroad police officers, unlike any other private police department, are commissioned under State law to enforce the laws of that State and any other State in which the railroad owns property. As a result of this broad law enforcement authority, railroad police officers are actively involved in numerous investigations and cases with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. For example, Amtrak has a police officer assigned to the New York Joint Task Force on Terrorism which is made up of 140 members from such disparate agencies as the FBI, the U.S. Marshals Service, the U.S. Secret Service and the ATF. This task force investigates domestic and foreign terrorist groups in response to actual terrorist incidents in my home area, Metropolitan New York. With thousands of passengers traveling on our railways each year, making sure that railroad police officers have available to them the highest level of training is in the national interest. The officers that protect railroad passengers deserve the same opportunity to receive training at Quantico that their counterparts employed by State and local governments enjoy. Railroad police officers who attend the FBI National Academy in Quantico for training would be required to pay their own room, board, and transportation. This legislation, as my colleague pointed out, is supported by the FBI, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Union Pacific Company, and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. I thank Senator Leahy for his work on this issue. I urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and the substitute being offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and others. I would appeal to my colleagues on perhaps a different level than this issue has been debated for some time. We still have relatively small numbers of American citizens participating in Internet commerce, but that number continues to rise almost exponentially each year. And the reason for that rise in participation in the Internet commerce world is people are developing more confidence. Each time they go make a purchase and they get their product and their credit card number is not stolen and their information not shopped around, people are more likely to come back in future years to partake in that activity again. That is why it is so absolutely important during this period when Internet commerce is growing that we do everything we can to reassure consumers and reassure those in the States that when they pass laws that they are going to be protected. The substitute adheres to the most stringent consumer protection while still allowing digital signatures. For those of my colleagues who are like me who on some level do believe that the banking community and the insurance and financial services community should have easier access to this world, I believe we have to do this in a thoughtful way while preserving consumers' rights and, of course, while preserving the rights of States and localities to do what they need to do to reassure those who do partake in the Internet commerce that they will be safe in doing so. The substitute does that. It does not jeopardize the basic things that the sponsor of the bill would like to do. I urge a yes vote on the substitute.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 1300.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. If the gentleman will yield for a moment, I have to tell you, and it is interesting to hear you use that language. Last night a bipartisan group of Members of Congress sat down and heard a speech by John Chambers, who is the CEO of Cisco. Cisco Systems, they are a company that makes the switches that all Internet commerce and all Internet traffic travels over. They do not actually make the wire. It is kind of like no matter who is carrying the information they are making the switches to get it there. They are a very successful company, a market capitalization that frankly boggles the mind at this point. When he was describing his company, the gentleman sitting next to me was I believe from Chase Manhattan Bank and he turned to me and said, ``That's five times the market capital of my company,'' and he is a major bank. It was interesting because very often we are visited on Capitol Hill by folks who are making narrow appeals for legislation that might help their particular business. But what Mr. Chambers argued for is the two major things that he thought would not only benefit his company but the country as a whole is, as you said, one is the infrastructure, making sure the infrastructure is available for this new economy to travel over, and he harkened again and again to the notion of education. His argument was very simple. He said that a company like his, if he so desired, could in a matter of a year or two move its work elsewhere, move its jobs elsewhere. That is how interconnected the community has become. If you think that is an exaggeration, I would ask you when you go back to your office here at the House of Representatives, if you want a bill, you go onto the Internet and you just print it up on your computer. When I was here working on Capitol Hill, not eons ago, just 5 or 6 years ago, you had to look up in a book the bill number or call over to someone and get the bill number and then there was a House documents room, where you had to walk down, someone would climb up on the ladder and they would actually pull down a copy of the bill and there you had a copy of the bill. So this is technology that is making every corner of this economy work much faster and much more efficiently. With that same speed, if we are slow on the uptake with education changes, with infrastructure changes, we are simply going to get left behind. It is very easy for somebody like John Chambers who employs thousands and thousands of people at Cisco to say, well, I am going to go to Australia tomorrow because so little of his business actually involves bricks and mortar in Silicon Valley. That was one lesson that I think he left with us that was very poignant. He kept coming back to education. On some level I would argue, for him, he will find his workforce, because there are going to be countries out there who are smart enough to figure this stuff out and invest quickly. He was describing the slow evolution, perhaps revolution is the wrong word to use about China, I say to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), but evolution that is going on where they are starting to catch up and investing more and more of their resources in education. So I think we have a window of time here. You have described it very well. We have a window of time here where we can take advantage of the enormous intellectual wealth that is being created in this country and try to pass some of it along to our schools and these three bills do that.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for yielding. I also wanted to thank him for bringing this issue to the floor. He has really tried to push this issue to the forefront, and he is frankly bucking some of our conventions around here in the House of Representatives. One of the things that we are known for in this great body is acting with great alacrity, with great speed in times of crisis. It is a time when we come together on both sides of the aisle and we manage to get the People's work done, whether we stare down the barrel of very often misfortune or war or crisis in the country. But it is very difficult often to discuss the types of issues that my colleague is discussing here tonight because it requires our making an intellectual leap not just to next week or next year but maybe to events that might happen 10 or 15 years down the road. And when we are looking at issues like this, frankly, this process has never been very good at it. We have never been very good on planning for the next generation for 4 or 5 years hence. But I would argue, and my colleague has made this point abundantly clear, as has the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), that we are at that crisis mode right now. Our students today are doing very poorly as compared to other major industrialized nations, in math, in science. Frankly they rank near the bottom. And we are also seeing that there is a crisis and that jobs are very mobile. Perhaps no community is more evident of that than the one that the gentleman represents in Connecticut, one where once upon a time it was unheard of that insurance jobs could be anywhere else except around one another in one community. The same is true for my financial services in New York City. Now with the new technologies being what they are, jobs are extraordinarily mobile and it does not just stop at one district, it does not stop at the borders of our country. Jobs could almost overnight at the throw of a switch leave our shore and go overseas. This is a crisis of our economy. I have to say that this is also a crisis because decisions that we make today in 1999, on the legislation that you are pushing, are decisions that will manifest themselves 5 or 6 or 10 years down the road. If we do not act on these things now, it is going to be too late if we wake up and see, wait a minute, we have got a terrible brain drain, we have a terrible circumstance where we cannot fill the good jobs that our economy is producing, we better hurry up and invest in education. It does not work like that. You have to invest in 1999 to see the benefits in 2009. So I would argue we are at the precipice of a crisis in our education system right now. But another element that we are kind of bucking against here and this one is a philosophical problem. Many people in this Chamber and perhaps many people in the country at large still have what I would argue is an outdated federalist notion of education issues. We are still very much hung up on the idea that education is an issue that they deal with at the local level and the city council from where I came, in the States from where you came and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) came and it is really Congress' job to stay out of the way. And in fact we go so far as to say it is our job here in Congress to pave a road but if it goes by a school, we cannot touch it. We can pave a highway but we cannot plug a school into the Internet. That is a philosophical objection that we hear around here from time to time that speaks to a federalist argument that is literally generations behind us. Today, we have a national crisis. Today, we have an emergency that transcends that type of thinking. Now, I would share the argument that many of my colleagues make here that we should not, once we plug the school in, say here is what we think you should look at with that Internet hookup, here is what we think how many kids you should have in the classroom. Although I have views on that, perhaps that is something for a local school board or a local city or local governance. But for the Federal Government to stand back in the face of what is really an economic battle, an economic war that goes beyond these shores and say we will not get involved really does ignore a major problem. The legislation that you have proposed and are sponsoring recognizes that the Federal Government has to get in the game, has to begin to participate in solving this problem. This is, I believe, an intuitive point among parents around this country in districts, Republican, Democrat, independent and the like.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I do not know where Sylacauga, Alabama, is. But in February of 1999, Billy Jack Gaither, a gay man, was abducted and beaten to death with an ax handle and set afire among burning tires in a remote area. And frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not know where Texas City, Texas, is either. But that is a place where two black gay men, Laaron Morris and Kevin Tryals, were shot to death and one of the men was left inside a burning car. And very frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not know where Kenosha, Wisconsin, is, although I have heard of it. But that is a place where, in May of 1999, a 27-year-old man intentionally swerved his car onto a sidewalk to run over two African-American teens. After hitting the two cyclists, he left the scene and kept driving until stopped by police. Eight years earlier, the same man ran his car twice into a stopped van carrying five African-American men and drove away. I do not know where those places are. But very frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think many Americans do not know where Laramie, Wyoming, was until about a year ago Matthew Shepard, an openly gay 21-year-old university student, was savagely beaten, burned, tied to a wooden fence in a remote area, and left to die in subfreezing temperatures. There is nothing about these cases that reflects poorly on those individual towns across America. In fact, hate crimes like these, unfortunately, are happening in towns big and small, major metropolises, small neighborhoods all across this country. Since 1991, when the Department of Justice started keeping hate crime statistics, they found after surveying hundreds of police department law enforcement agencies around this country that about 4,600 hate crimes had been committed. When they did a similar survey in 1997, they found that that number had nearly doubled to over 8,000. This is an epidemic, Mr. Speaker. Matthew Shepard made us all gasp in horror. But now we in Congress have an opportunity to act. Not so long ago, in 1990 and 1994, this House did act in passing the Hate Crime Statistics Act and Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act. But we have seen again and again that that law needs to be strengthened. We learned frankly from cases all across this country that there are problems with the current law that we are obligated to fix. The Federal prosecution of hate crimes can only happen if the crime is motivated by race, religion, national origin, color, and the assailant intended to prevent the victim from exercising a very narrowly defined protected right, like voting or attending school. The law is so narrowly written that we are seeing problems with prosecutions all around this country. In 1994, a Federal jury in Fort Worth, Texas, acquitted three white supremacists of Federal civil rights charges arising form unprovoked assaults on African-Americans, including one incident where the defendant knocked the man unconscious as he stood near a bus stop. Some of the jurors revealed after the acquittal that although they were absolutely convinced that the crime was racially motivated, they could not find that it fit into one of these narrow racially protected activities. The same happened in 1992 when two white men chased a man of Asian descent from a nightclub in Detroit and beat him to death. The Department of Justice, with a great deal of help from the State and locality, tried to prosecute it using the current hate crimes law and failed because the law was too narrowly crafted. We have an opportunity with the bill that is currently before the House Committee on the Judiciary to deal with this problem, to broaden the crimes which the Federal Government, with the help of the States and localities, can prosecute. We have seen over and over again that if the Federal Government brings its forces to bear, that we can make a difference. Mr. Speaker, sometimes this House is criticized for acting only in the face of abject crisis. I believe that that crisis has been shown to us by the horror of Matthew Shepard. Now is the opportunity for us to act in this time of crisis, to pass the Hate Crimes Enhancement Act, to finally begin to do something to stop that increasing trend of hate crimes. I cannot promise anyone in this Chamber that if we were to pass this act, there will not be people with hate in their hearts, there will not be people who do horrific things in small towns and big cities all across this country. But I do know we have an obligation to act, because what happened to Matthew Shepard was not just a blow to that small town, it was not just a blow to gay rights, it was not just a blow to that person's family, it was a blow to our national family. It was a horror that all of us must address.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I agree with the ostensible purpose of the bill that we will be considering today. If the idea is to have additional penalties when a woman is harmed who is carrying a child because that person is more vulnerable, because the harm to them is greater, I agree. That is why I am supporting the Lofgren substitute. But let us be very honest here. There is a true purpose and, frankly, the sponsors of the legislation stated that true purpose in committee and that is to undermine Roe versus Wade. The previous speaker articulately pointed out that we should be protecting children. Well, I am not sure he has actually had an opportunity to read who it is that we are protecting in this bill. We are protecting ``a member in any stage of development who is carried in the womb.'' But frankly, I would like to address my remarks to not those who have already a position on whether they believe Roe versus Wade should or should not be undermined. If they believe that there should be increased penalties for people who commit this type of crime to a woman, then they can vote for the Lofgren substitute. The Lofgren substitute, frankly, has the exact same penalty in total years as the base bill. If they want someone to go away for life, the Lofgren substitute will do that. And the sponsors, frankly, agreed in questioning during markup that their objective was not that. I pointedly asked the sponsor, I said, listen, if they have the same exact crime and the penalty meted out by the courts is life in prison without the opportunity for parole in both cases, would they be satisfied with the Lofgren substitute? And the answer was no. Because the true intention is to establish this new subterfuge to undermine Roe versus Wade. But for those of us in this House who want to ease prosecution, I would tell them definitely do not support the base bill, support the Lofgren substitute. Can my colleagues imagine any prosecutor in this Nation who is going to want the choice-of-life debate getting in the way of deliberations on a murder in an assault case, having that float over these debates? Well, that is what will happen if the base bill becomes law and not the Lofgren substitute. For all of my colleagues who want to protect women, let us do it, let us really protect women. Let us try to strike a blow for the nearly one in three women in this country who are victims of domestic violence. We should pass laws that focus on that crime. The Lofgren substitute is one. Violence against women is one. The hate crimes bill is one. These are things that seek to strike a blow to protect women. Let us do that. Let us reject this base bill. Support the common sense Lofgren substitute and support this rule which allows that to happen.

Mr. WEINER

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

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation and ranking member for the fine work that they have done on this bill. This is a piece of legislation that doubtlessly will not earn front page notice in our newspapers around the country, but the fine work that has been done by the subcommittee in ensuring the safety of travelers around the country should not go unnoticed, and this bill is indeed worthy of the full House's support. Mr. Chairman, I will not take my full time. I just want to thank the chairman for his previous statement and for his understanding of the situation. This is an instance where the drafting of the bill had been overtaken by events on what is admittedly a controversial issue. I agree 100 percent that there should be a terminal doppler radar installed to serve the New York City area, the Kennedy and LaGuardia Airports. That is something that I think my constituents and all New Yorkers and travelers around the world support. I am hopeful and confident that the way has been cleared for a way to install that doppler radar in a quick and expeditious fashion. My amendment simply strikes the section of the bill that predates an agreement that was entered into between Interior and the FAA that was mediated by the Council on Environmental Quality. Again, I want to thank very much the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member for their understanding in this matter.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the Family Building Act of 1999. This legislation will assure the millions of Americans suffering from the disease of infertility that the treatments they so desperately need will be covered by their health insurance plans. There is nothing more basic to human beings than the desire to have a family. Yet, more than 6 million American families will suffer from infertility at some point in their reproductive lives. However, fewer than 1 in 4 employer-based insurance plans include coverage for infertility. Imagine being given the devastating news that you have a fertility problem. Fortunately, your physician confidently informs you that the majority of couples who seek treatment for their infertility are able to have a baby. So you leave the office feeling hopeful if not optimistic. Then news even more devastating than your diagnosis comes your way: your health plan has decided that infertility is a disease they don't think worthy of covering. Their profits mean more than your inability to have a family. It's unfair, and it happens too often in this country. As fewer and fewer of our citizens are allowed any meaningful choice in health plans, Americans are being denied access to medical treatments that provide them with their only hope of becoming a parent. This is unfair, and the Family Building Act of 1999 will put a stop to it. The insurance industry may claim that providing infertility coverage will cost them so much money that they will either go out of business or that employers will not be able to provide any coverage at all. This is not the case. Studies completed by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine have shown that providing comprehensive infertility coverage will add only three dollars per member per year. Thirteen states have already passed similar legislation and it has not driven the insurance companies out of business, nor has it caused employers to drop their health insurance. In fact, in Massachusetts a study shows that the cost for HMOs actually went down when they started providing coverage. Insurance coverage for infertility also allows for better medicine. We have all heard about and been concerned with the rising number of triplets, quadruplets and even higher numbers of multiple births from fertility treatments. Proper insurance coverage will allow patients and their physicians to pursue conservative, medically appropriate treatments and lower the risk of multiple births. Consider: just three dollars a year could allow thousands of Americans to become parents. I think it's worth it, the American people think it's worth it and I hope this House will show it thinks it's worth it by passing the Family Building Act of 1999.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite our colleagues to join me in honoring Judge Philip E. Lagana, a great American, and fellow New Yorker, who spent his life serving the public and our country. Through countless hours of hard work and dedication, Judge Lagana upheld the values and principles of our country's Constitution by fairly, firmly, and compassionately serving as a Justice of the New York State Supreme Court. The following tribute delivered at his funeral service by Joseph Crea, Professor Emeritus at Brooklyn Law School, beautifully captures this man's invaluable contributions to his community.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, the Queens Courier, a distinguished local newspaper in New York, recently concluded in an exclusive study that they did in this edition that hepatitis C has reached near epidemic proportions in New York City and, in fact, in the Nation as a whole. The Queens Courier study actually does a great national service to bring our attention to what is an often and unrecognized epidemic: Nearly 4 million Americans have been affected by hepatitis C. As a result, there are almost 10,000 deaths every year in this country, and it causes over $600 million in medical bills in our country. This is indeed an epidemic, albeit a quiet one. This is particularly poignant to New York City, where there are so many immigrant communities. Now is the time for not only authorities in New York State, but the Center for Disease Control here in Washington, to finally recognize that hepatitis C has reached a crisis proportion. The Queens Courier has done a very important job by calling this to our attention. Now we in Congress have to take up this call and address the problems of hepatitis C.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I do not think we will see a single conservative supporting this amendment. After all, I have not been here very long, but I have figured out what conservatives support. They support local initiatives, church-based initiatives, community-based organizations going out and trying to solve a community's problems and Washington staying out of their way. So there is no way anyone that calls themselves a conservative can possibly support the idea of Congress not only opposing the use of Federal funds, but even local funds, to try to solve a health problem that my colleagues on that side of the aisle have done precious little to solve. What we are doing here is stepping all over a classic, conservative ideal which has let the District of Columbia manage its affairs the way it sees best.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the statement of the sponsor of the amendment; and there was great deal of emphasis on how, in the sponsor's opinion, this family structure with two unaffiliated folks would not be in the best interest of the child. Well, with all due deference, why should we care what we here think is in the best interest of the child? I mean, there are court proceedings that are going to have the opportunity to discern that. There are authorities in all the 50 States, including the District of Columbia, to make that determination. Why is our judgment sitting here so very important? The notion that somehow they would be better off with one parent, as the previous speaker seemed to imply, or in foster care, which is implicit in this entire debate, is utterly absurd. The point has also been made that these two people who are seeking the adoption are to the affiliated. They are affiliated. They are affiliated in their love and caring for this child. That affiliation should be the overarching one. That affiliation should be the one that is most important. Finally, this notion that there is nothing legally binding between these two folks, in fact, in the past in this very House there have been prohibitions put on the District of Columbia from establishing domestic partnership jurisdiction which would clarify this issue once and for all. In fact, this argument should be about what is best for the child, not what we here think are values and how we here define ``family.'' That is not the issue. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. WEINER

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, today is the Tisha B'Av, 5759 by the Hebrew calendar, the most important day of mourning in the Jewish year. It is the anniversary of the most tragic events in Jewish history, for it was on the this day, in 3338 that the first temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians, and in 3828 that the second temple was destroyed by the Romans. Although this day is primarily meant to commemorate the destruction of the Temple, it is appropriate to consider on this day the many other tragedies of the Jewish people, many of which occurred on this day, the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, Betar, the last fortress to hold out against the Romans during the Bar Kochba revolt, fell, and so many others. But the tragedies of Jewish history are not all so ancient. This past Sunday marked the 5th anniversary of the bombing of the Jewish Cultural Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina. On July 18, 1994, the Jewish Cultural Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina was destroyed by a terrorist bomb. Eighty-six people were killed. Over 300 people were wounded. The Argentina Mutual Aid Association's archive of community records, which dated back to 1894, was destroyed. While this bomb destroyed the building, and the records, and the lives of so many--Jews and non-Jews alike--it has not dampened the spirit of the Jewish population of Argentina, which at 250,000 is second only to the United states in this hemisphere. What is dispiriting is that today, five years after that tragic bombing, we still have not brought the terrorists to justice. Though we have recently seen the arrest of more suspects, there is still no resolution, no closure for the families that still grieve for their loved ones. That is why I am choosing today, Tisha B'Av, the ninth of Av, to introduce a concurrent resolution calling upon the Argentine Government to fully support and devote all resources necessary to the efforts of Judge Juan Jose Galeano and to fully investigate, apprehend, and prosecute those responsible for the bombing; requesting that the Argentine security forces and the judiciary of Argentina not impede this independent investigation; and requesting that Argentine President Carlos Menem appoint an independent committee to investigate and report on the integrity and competence of Argentina's system of justice. I invite my colleagues to cosponsor this resolution.