Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this morning's New York Times reveals that a new classified assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency says Iraq may prove to be an even more effective training ground for Islamic extremists than Afghanistan was in al Qaeda's early days because it is serving as a real-world laboratory for urban combat and that Iraq, since the American invasion of 2003, had assumed the role played by Afghanistan during the rise of al Qaeda as a magnet and a proving ground for Islamic extremists from Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries. Mr. Speaker, we know that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We know there was no connection between Iraq and Osama bin Laden. We know the President deceived the American people on these subjects, got us into an unnecessary war, and has now created a danger zone in Iraq, a country that was no danger, no threat to the United States and now is a training ground for more al Qaeda extremists who will be more and more endangering to the United States in terrorism. We have created a training ground. We have created a training ground for terrorists because of the President's deception of American people. Some war on terrorism.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by reading excerpts of an article written in the ``Retired Officer,'' a veterans magazine, by a Major James Warner, who was a POW in Vietnam for 6 years. He writes as follows: ``In March of 1973, when we were released from a prisoner-of- war camp in North Vietnam, we were flown to Clark Air Base in the Philippines. ``As I stepped out of the aircraft, I looked up and saw the flag. I caught my breath then as tears filled my eyes. I saluted it. I never loved my country more than at that moment. Although I had received a Silver Star medal, and two Purple Hearts, they were nothing compared to the gratitude that I felt then for having been allowed to serve the cause of freedom. ``Because the mere sight of the flag meant so much to me when I saw it for the first time after 5\1/2\ years, it hurts me to see other Americans willfully desecrate it. It hurts to see the flag burned, but I part company with those who want to punish the flag burners. Let me explain myself.'' He then goes on to talk about his experience in the POW camp. He says, ``I remember one interrogation where I was shown a photograph of some Americans protesting the war by burning a flag. See, the officer said, people in your country protest against your cause. That proves you are wrong. ``No, I said, that proves I am right. In my country we are not afraid of freedom, even if it means that people disagree with us. The officer was on his feet in an instant, his face purple with rage. He smashed his fist onto the table and screamed at me to shut up. While he was ranting, I was astonished to see pain compounded by fear in his eyes. I have never forgotten that look, nor have I forgotten the satisfaction I felt at using his tool, the picture of the burning flag, against him. ``We do not need,'' he continues, ``to amend the Constitution in order to punish those who burn our flag. They burn the flag because they hate America and they are afraid of freedom. What better way to hurt them than with a subversive idea of freedom? Do not be afraid of freedom, it is the best weapon we have.'' This is, as I said, from Major James Warner, who was a POW in Vietnam for 6 years who understands freedom, and therefore opposes this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, there have been thousands of amendments introduced, thousands of proposed amendments introduced to the Constitution of the United States. Only 17 have been adopted since 1791 after the Bill of Rights. Amendments were proposed after most unpopular Supreme Court decisions. After the one-man, one-vote decision in 1960, whatever it was, where they said you had to reapportion based on population, there were amendments introduced. Amendments have been introduced after every unpopular decision of the Supreme Court. It is deliberately difficult to amend the Constitution because the framers of the Constitution were afraid of transient majorities. They were afraid of emotion, and they deliberately wanted it to be difficult to amend the Constitution so it would not be amended very often, and only under dire necessity. What is the dire necessity here? What is the dire necessity, that in the last 20 years, I heard someone say 119 people have burned the flag. Well, a lot more than 119 people have burned the flag. Most, however, have burned the flag to dispose of it, which is the approved method of disposing of it. I have heard the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) say, and others say, this has nothing to do with free speech. People can say anything they want. But it is burning the flag. But the fact is, it is very much free speech. That is why the Supreme Court decided as it did, because burning the flag for a proper purpose, that is, to say an approved purpose, to destroy it, to destroy a tattered flag, is approved. But burning the flag to express an unpopular viewpoint, we do not agree with the administration in power about whatever, that would be made a crime. So what is the real essence of the crime? Burning the flag in connection with unpopular speech. If you burn it in connection with popular speech, we respect the flag and we dispose of this, or this connection with popular speech because you are an actor playing the British burning Washington in 1814, that is okay. So this gets at the heart of free speech. Now, it may not be all that important right now, and it is not. We do not see any epidemic of people burning flags. We have no great emotional issue at the moment that have people marching in the streets; but as the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) pointed out, at times in our history we have, and at times in our history people have been persecuted and free speech has been violated. We should not repeat that. We should not make it easier at times of emotion in the future on issues we cannot now foresee for unpopular minorities to be bullied. We should not make it easier for unpopular minorities in the future to have their free speech trampled or to give weapons to a future government with which to trample free speech. We all love the flag. No one is divided on that in this Chamber. But those of us who understand, I think, the meaning of liberty and the meaning of what this country stands for, perhaps in a way, I would want to say better than others, but that would be a little arrogant, but to understand that as we do, understand that the real meaning of this country is to permit free speech, to magnify free speech, to magnify free speech of those we do not agree with, of those we find obnoxious. And what this amendment does is to sacrifice that. The cloth of the flag is not what we revere. What we revere is the idea of the flag and the Republic for which it stands. That idea is threatened by this amendment, not protected by it; and that is why it should not be approved. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I will control the time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we are enduring the Republican rite of spring: A proposed amendment to the Bill of Rights to restrict what it calls flag desecration. Why spring? Because Members need to send out a press release extolling the need to protect the flag, as if the flag somehow needed Congress to protect it. It is easier than answering questions about the failure of this House to provide proper health care to our veterans, proper armor to save the lives of our troops, or proper support for their survivors. Mr. Speaker, I have heard a number of speakers invoke the rescuers and heroes and first responders at Ground Zero on September 11 and the few weeks after. Mr. Speaker, that is my district. I was there in the days after 9/11. I have seen the heroism and the self-sacrifice of the first responders. I have watched their betrayal by the Government of the United States, by the Federal and State and local governments which are not providing for their health care, which are not providing workers' comp when they cannot do their jobs because of World Trade Center health syndrome, which denies that they were present in the workers' comp proceedings after they get medals for rescuing people. That is the betrayal we should talk about. What they care about is being made whole, is having their health care taken care of and their lives restored, not this. The flag is a symbol of our great Nation and the fundamental freedoms that have made this Nation great. If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from Members of Congress who value the symbol more than they value the freedoms the flag represents. Quite frankly, the crass political use of the flag to question the patriotism of those who value fundamental freedoms is a greater insult to those who died in the service of our Nation than is the burning of the flag. I am certain we will hear speeches invoking the sacrifice of our troops in the field as a pretext for carving up the first amendment. We already have. That is a shameful exploitation of the patriotism and courage of these fine and courageous young people. It is the civic equivalent of violating the commandment against taking the Lord's name in vain. If Members want to honor the sacrifice of our troops, protect the rights they fight for. Protect our civil liberties, and protect the rights of veterans. Playing games with the Constitution does not honor them. People have rights in this country that supersede public opinion, even strongly held public opinion. That is why we have a Bill of Rights to protect minorities from the majority. If we do not preserve those rights, then the flag will have been desecrated far beyond the capability of any idiot with a cigarette lighter. Let there be no doubt that this amendment is aimed directly at ideas. Current Federal laws say that the preferred way to dispose of a tattered flag is to burn it, but there are those who would criminalize the same act of burning the flag if it was done to express political dissent. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is I have seen motion pictures, I have seen movies reflecting the War of 1812 in which the British burned our capital. I saw in those movies, actors playing British soldiers burning the flag. Did we send in the police to arrest the actors for this flag desecration? Of course not. We do not mind that because we know they do not mean it. That is to say, they are not burning the flag as an expression of disdain for our values, as an expression of their opinions on political issues of their disagreement with the administration or with the government in power. No, they are doing it as part of a play, play-acting; so the physical act does not mean anything, so we do not care. But under this amendment, if someone were to do the same thing, burn the flag at the same time as he says, I disagree with the policy of whatever it is, that would be a criminal act. So what is really being made criminal? Not the act of burning the flag. What is really being made criminal is the act of burning the flag combined with the expression of a dissident, unpopular political opinion. The act of burning the flag to dispose of it is a praiseworthy act. The act of burning the flag as part of a movie or part of a play, that is okay. I do not think anybody contemplates arresting the actors. Really, what we are getting at here is the core expression of first amendment protected ideas. We will arrest people who as part of expressing their opinion about something burn the flag. But if they burn the flag without expressing an opinion contrary to the government as part of a play or for some other reason, that will be okay. That should tell us what this amendment is about. That is why the Supreme Court said that the law was unconstitutional, because it does violate the first amendment. The distinguished ranking member is quite correct. If we carve out this exception for the first amendment, if we make this the first time that we will limit rights protected by the Bill of Rights, it will be easier to do it in the future. Then the next amendment will come along and say that, well, if you say things that we think, that somebody at the moment thinks endangers American troops, you say the war, whatever war it is at the moment, is wrong, our President shouldn't have done it, whoever the President may be at that moment, our troops shouldn't be in wherever they are, that is endangering our troops, we will make that illegal. That will be easier to do. That is why this amendment is so dangerous. How many Members of Congress, used car dealers, fast-food restaurants, and other seemingly legitimate individuals and enterprises have engaged in the act of using the flag or parts of the flag for advertising, an act which our unconstitutional law defines as flag desecration? This amendment would presumably make that law constitutional once more. If ratified, I think there are more than a few people who will have to redesign their campaign materials to stay out of jail, except, of course, that probably no one will arrest them for that violation of the law because they will not be seen to be using it for dissident political speech, unless they are running on an unpopular platform, then maybe they will be. Again, that is the danger of this amendment. As if this assault on the Bill of Rights is not enough, the Judiciary Committee once again did not even bother holding a hearing on this very significant constitutional amendment. The Subcommittee on the Constitution did not bother to consider it, to debate it, or to vote on it. Now, I know that they will say, We've held hearings in previous Congresses. Yeah, and we have rejected this amendment in previous Congresses. And this is a new Congress. There are new Members. There is no excuse for doing something or attempting to do something so significant to start tearing up the Bill of Rights without even a hearing to hear opinions on it just because prior Congresses may have held hearings. This cavalier attitude toward the Bill of Rights is offensive and revealing. Why discuss it? Why look into it? It's only the Constitution. We're only talking about the rights of a few malcontents for whom even opponents of this amendment have contempt. And we do have contempt for people who would burn the flag. None of us think that those people are doing something praiseworthy. We all think it is absurd and wrong, but we think their right to be wrong has to be protected. That is what America is all about. By the way, where is this epidemic of flag burning? I do not recall seeing anybody burning the flag in I do not know how many years. What is the danger we are legislating against? People have died for this great Nation and the rights which this flag so proudly represent. We are a shining beacon to the world because we allow dissent, even when that dissent is offensive or despicable. Let us not cease to be a shining beacon on the hill. Let us not diminish our liberty. Let us not destroy the way of life for which our troops have made the ultimate sacrifice. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) indicated this does not implicate free speech. I would simply point out that we see movies all the time. In those movies we see actors dressed up as Nazis, as German soldiers in German World War II trampling and burning the flag. Do we go out and arrest those actors? Of course not, because we know the actors do not mean it; they are playing a role. But this amendment says if an American citizen to make a point, a point that he disagrees with the actions of his government, were to do the same thing, then we would arrest him. So what are we really saying? It is not the act of the flag burning that matters; it is the point of view associated with the flag burning which is why this is a free speech issue and why we should not pass this amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this restrictive rule for not making in order the Waxman amendment to provide for an investigation by a bipartisan, independent commission of the detainee abuses alleged at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and other sites. Let me say at the outset that the men and women in our armed services ought to be praised for their selfless sacrifices. They deserve not to have their names and their good works associated with the torture and abuse that has been alleged in newspapers and other reports. That is why it is so important to have a complete and full investigation and to receive assurances that torture and abuse are not standard operating procedure in our armed forces, even if torture was authorized by Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General Gonzales. It is not authorized by Congress or by the American people who ultimately get to have the final say. It also bothers me that these detainees do not have any way of asserting their innocence. The President says they are all terrorists, but what if some of them were cases of mistaken identity? What if some of them had nothing to do with terrorism? What if they have a similar name or a similar appearance, but are indeed factually innocent of all charges? It seems to me that if the government is so sure that everyone we are holding is a terrorist, there should be no trouble convincing a court, a judge, or a military court. That would be preferable to having the government assert that all of these people are terrorists, just trust us. We cannot allow that type of abuse of power to continue in our name. This assertion of the right to hold people forever, with no specific evidence and no due process, has not been asserted in an English- speaking country since before Magna Carta, 800 years ago, until this President had the nerve to besmirch the good name of the United States by making such an assertion. This is not how America became the Shining City on a Hill so admired by people the world over. No executive should be permitted the power to lock people up forever without ever having to prove their guilt. That is a power that I would trust to no man, no king, no dictator, and no President. Let me say one other thing. Torture and abuse of prisoners is not just a shameful violation of human rights, it does not work. People under torture will say anything. Intelligence professionals know better than to believe or to rely on information extracted under torture. Torture and abuse of detainees is wrong for so many reasons. It is a horrendous practice, it produces nothing but shame and more enemies for the United States, and anger from the rest of the world. We need to aggressively investigate these abuses and put safeguards and policies into place to prevent them from ever happening again.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 324) as to a question of the privileges of the House and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we are not here discussing the substance or the merits of the PATRIOT Act or the manner in which it was adopted 4 years ago or the sufficiency of the oversight of the PATRIOT Act by the Committee on the Judiciary. We will have plenty of time to discuss that on the floor in coming weeks. We are discussing the abuse of power and flouting of the rules by the chairman of the committee at the minority hearing on June 10. What the chairman said today did not contest or dispute a single point or a single allegation or assertion in the resolution. He did not deny that he rigidly cut off witnesses, every witness, in mid-sentence, a practice unheard of normally in the Committee on the Judiciary. He did not deny that he made several false and disparaging comments about members of the minority in violation of the rules. He did not deny that he refused on numerous occasions throughout the hearing to recognize members of the minority party attempting to raise points of order. He did not deny that he violated the rules by adjourning unilaterally and peremptorily the committee hearing while members were seeking recognition and seeking points of order. He did not deny that his staff cut off our microphones and even the lights when we were attempting to continue the hearing that he had illegally attempted to cut off. He says that I said that he chaired the hearing with an attitude of total hostility. Watch the C-SPAN tape, not the tape on the committee website, the entire tape on the C-SPAN website. You will see the accuracy of what I said. This was unforgivable, it was undemocratic, it was tyrannical. It was demeaning to the House and it should not occur again. Regardless of how he normally chairs hearings, regardless of whatever may happen about the PATRIOT Act in the future, this was an exercise in tyrannical disregard of the rights of the members of the minority and the millions of Americans we represent. It is intolerable, it is abusive, and, therefore, this resolution should be passed and it should not happen again. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I must rise again to invoke the privileges of the House and to defend the rules and the spirit of simple courtesy and cooperation. I do not enjoy taking the time of this House away from our important business to do so; but recent events, the willful and repeated disregard for the rules of the House, the persistent abuse of power by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and the flagrant abuse of the rights of the minority make this resolution necessary. As I said the last time I came to the floor for this purpose, it is my fervent hope that this will be the last time it will ever be necessary for me or any other Member to offer such a resolution or to rise on a question of personal privilege. We should be spending our time dealing with the problems and concerns of the American people; but when a chairman abuses his power to stifle debate, Members of this House, both Republicans and Democrats, have a duty to defend the honor of this institution and the integrity of its proceedings. So long as power is abused, rules are ignored and broken and the rights of Members who represent millions of Americans are violated, this House cannot do its job properly. The American people are cheated of their right to an honest, open, fair, and democratic debate on issues affecting the future of our Nation. That is why we are here again today. These are the facts: the minority is entitled by the rules to a day of hearings. It is a right rarely exercised, but it guards against the majority abusing its power to exclude competing views. Call it the fair and balanced rule. It is not the chairman's right to determine whether we deserve, in quotes, a hearing. It is not the chairman's right to decide whether his prior hearings were sufficient. It is not the chairman's right to decide whether what we say or think is acceptable or relevant. And it is certainly never the chairman's right to violate the rules in order to interfere with our right to conduct the hearing guaranteed to us by the rules. The chairman is entitled to his opinions. He is not entitled to break the rules, to abuse his power and to impose his will. The chairman as a general rule permits only one minority witness in each committee or subcommittee hearing of the Judiciary Committee. I know of no other committee with this sort of restrictive rule. No matter what the issue, no matter how complex, no matter how many perspectives there might be, the chairman does not allow more than one minority witness. On that basis alone, we have every right to insist on a day of hearings every time, a day of minority hearings, but we do not. Of course, that is when he allows hearings at all. In this Congress alone, the chairman has decided that we do not need hearings on such important issues as amendments to the Constitution, alleged mistreatment of detainees, and a rewrite of our bankruptcy code. These are hardly isolated cases. Is that the way we are supposed to do our job? No need for a hearing, the chairman wants to do it, so let's just do it. We do not need a hearing to look at the facts. Members under the rules have the right to question each witness for 5 minutes apiece. We checked with the Parliamentarian. That is 5 minutes for each member for each witness. Yet the chairman repeatedly refused to recognize members. He consistently and abusively cut off members and witnesses in mid-sentence. It is the chairman's custom, to which we have not objected, to be fairly strict and after the 5 minutes are over to say, finish your thought or make your answer brief. That is fine. In this hearing, because it was a minority-called hearing, he consistently cut off members and witnesses in mid-sentence, and rather rudely. In one case, when a member of the majority accused a witness of endangering American lives, the chairman refused the witness the opportunity to respond. Of course, the chairman did not limit himself to 5 minutes. He recognized himself for an additional 5 minutes toward the end of the hearing in order to deride the witnesses and the minority members of the committee without allowing any response. Every Member of this House, Mr. Speaker, serves on committees and every Member of this House knows that this kind of abusive behavior is virtually unheard of. Witnesses should be treated with respect. So should colleagues. I thought we all knew that. The chairman refused to recognize members who were seeking recognition. He refused to recognize members who were attempting to raise points of order. Unacceptable. A clear violation of the rules. A plain abuse of power. The chairman simply ended the hearing unilaterally. While members were seeking recognition and attempting to raise points of order, he simply ignored them and banged the gavel and got up from his seat. The rules require a motion to adjourn because hearings are not normally ended unilaterally by a chairman. We consulted with the House Parliamentarian who confirmed that an adjournment motion must be approved by the members of the committee unless there is unanimous consent. The fact that adjournment is not normally contested because it is not necessary because everybody agrees does not change the rules. After the chairman unilaterally adjourned the hearing, while members were seeking recognition, while he refused to recognize those members seeking to raise points of order, the committee staff, either on the chairman's instructions or acting on their own accord, switched off members' microphones while we were attempting to speak, instructed the stenographer to stop recording the hearing and turned off the electronic transmission of the hearing. Again, the hearing was still proceeding because it had not been legally adjourned because there had been no vote and no unanimous consent. Thanks to C-SPAN, the rest of the hearing was recorded and broadcast so the chairman was unable to censor the minority and hide our thoughts from the American people, although he tried. Can any Member recall a time when a member's microphone was turned off while he or she was speaking in a committee meeting? Mr. Speaker, it is fair to ask, why should a member of the majority or the public care about adherence to the rules in these respects or about the rights of the minority? The answer is simple. Every Member represents more than half a million American citizens. Every one of those Americans is entitled to a voice in our government. No one should ever be allowed to abuse the power of his office to silence opposing views or to disenfranchise millions of Americans from having their views represented simply because they chose representatives of the minority party. The greatness of our Nation is our freedom to stand up for what we believe and to have everyone's voice heard in the halls of government. The arrogance of power, the abuse of power, the silencing of minority voices, is a direct threat not only to our rules but to our democracy and to our freedom. The rules of this House exist to protect our democracy. Every Member of this House, regardless of party, must stand up for this institution, for its rules, and for the democracy it represents. That is why I urge the adoption of this resolution and why I hope such a resolution will never again be necessary in this House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, although I believe in the values and principles expressed in the United Nations Charter, the organization has been hijacked by some member states who have betrayed those values. The use of blood libels by representatives of member states in official U.N. reports and by NGOs is unacceptable. It is time to do more to press the U.N. to reform. It is not enough to criticize the U.N. and to denounce its institutional anti-Semitism. Slandering the Jewish people, their aspirations for self-determination, and their homeland is unacceptable. Excluding Israel, a member state, from the community of nations because of ancient hatreds and slanders is unworthy of an organization founded to promote world peace and end human suffering. No other nation would be denounced for taking steps to protect its citizens from acts of terror aimed intentionally at civilians. No nation has exercised as much restraint as Israel, yet no nation has been subjected to so much condemnation, indeed vilification and demonization, including those countries that practice slavery, torture, and genocide, some of whom have been privileged to sit on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, a right denied to Israel in the more than half a century it has been a member. The U.N. is capable of good and important work in the eradication of disease, in alleviating poverty, in averting genocide, in peacekeeping. It can and should do more, but it can never live up to its potential and its mission unless it sheds the stain of anti-Semitism. For these reasons, the United Nations critically needs to be reformed. Yet, some commands for change, including several provisions in the Hyde bill, are counterproductive and unwise. Specifically I cannot support the Hyde bill provision that mandates cutting in half U.S. payments to the U.N. unless the U.N. adopts 39 specific reforms, many of which cannot conceivably be adopted because they require unanimous consent from all 191 member states, including Syria, Iran, and North Korea. The Hyde bill would halt funding for peacekeeping missions, endangering vital new or expanded U.N. operations in Darfur and Haiti, and ignoring the possibility of future crises that may demand international intervention is such places as Iran or Syria. The Lantos substitute recommends reforms that will make the U.N. more fair and effective, but it avoids the rigid and draconian approach that makes the Hyde bill both unreasonable and potentially dangerous, so I urge adoption of the Lantos substitute. Mr. Chairman, although I believe in the values and principles expressed in the United Nations Charter, the organization has been hijacked by some member states who have betrayed these values. The use of blood libels by representatives of member states, in official U.N. reports, and by NGOs, is unacceptable and clearly evidence that the United Nations needs to be reformed. I believe it is time for the United States to do more to press the U.N. to reform. It is not enough to criticize the U.N. It is not enough to denounce the U.N.'s institutional anti-Semitism. Slandering the Jewish people, their aspirations for self- determination, and their homeland, is unacceptable. Excluding Israel, a member state, from the community of nations because of ancient hatreds and slanders is unworthy of an organization founded to promote world peace and end human suffering. No other nation would be denounced for taking steps to protect its citizens from acts of terror aimed intentionally at civilians. No nation has exercised as much restraint as Israel, yet no nation has been subjected to so much condemnation, indeed vilification and demonization, including those countries that practice slavery, torture, and genocide, some of whom have been privileged to sit on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights--a right denied to Israel in the more than half-century it has been a member. The U.N. is capable of good and important work, in the eradication of disease, in alleviating poverty, in averting genocide, in peacekeeping. It can and should do more, but it can never live up to its potential and its mission unless it sheds the stain of anti-Semitism. For these reasons, the United Nations critically needs to be reformed. Yet, some demands for change--including several provisions in the Hyde bill--are counterproductive and unwise. Specifically, I cannot support the Hyde bill provision that mandates cutting in half United States payments to the U.N. unless the U.N. adopts 38 specific reforms--many of which cannot conceivably be adopted because they require unanimous consent from all 191 memberstates, including Syria, Iran, and North Korea. The Hyde bill would also halt funding for peacekeeping missions, endangering vital new or expanded U.N. operations in Darfur and Haiti, and ignoring the possibility of future crises that may demand international intervention in such places as Iran or Syria. The Democratic substitute, offered by my colleague and good friend from California Mr. Lantos, which authorizes the Secretary of State to use her discretion in withholding funds to promote adoption of the reforms we seek, is far preferable. The Lantos substitute recommend reforms that will make the U.N. more fair and effective, but it avoids the rigid, draconian, automatic approach that makes the Hyde bill both unreasonable and dangerous.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, there are no abuses we know of because they are all secret and they cannot tell us about abuses. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the issue in this amendment has nothing to do with the Ten Commandments. It has nothing to do with whether the Ten Commandments, or a sculpture of them, I assume, should be removed from wherever it is in Indiana. The issue in this amendment is should Congress prohibit the enforcement of a decree of a Federal court. There is nothing more fundamental to the rule of law in this country that once a Federal court issues a decision, sometimes it may be appealable, but once there is a final court order, that is the law. Chief Justice Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison 200 years ago, and I know that the gentleman from Indiana stated he thinks that case was wrongly decided, and he is entitled to his opinion, but it is the foundation of law in this country that it is emphatically the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is. If Congress wants to change the law, that is our prerogative. If we want to begin the process of amending the Constitution, that is our prerogative. But in terms of interpreting what the law is, what the Constitution commands, what the law passed pursuant to the Constitution says, that is the job of the courts. To fail to enforce court orders, to arrogate to this body the right to say that we do not like a particular decision, we do not agree with the court's interpretation of the Constitution, we do not agree with the court's interpretation of a law that we passed, therefore they may not enforce the law, is to say that we are no longer a Nation of laws. It is to say that we are no longer a Nation governed by a Constitution. This amendment is subversive in the extreme. If we can adopt this amendment saying that we shall not enforce the decision ``no funds herein appropriated may be used to enforce the decision of the court,'' in this particular instance in the Southern District of Indiana, then we can pass a bill that says we shall not enforce a decision of the court that says so and so may not go to jail or so and so must go to jail or anything else. No Member of this House who believes in the rule of law should vote for this amendment. The subject matter on which it is specifically aimed, the particular decision of the court, is not relevant. When President Eisenhower was faced in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957 with a question of sending in U.S. marshals to enforce the decree of the court in desegregating Little Rock High School, he did not approve of that decision. His biographers tell us he was not happy with it. But he sent in the U.S. marshals because the law, as decreed by the courts, as passed by Congress, as interpreted by the courts, must be enforced. If that is not the case, if the court's determination of what the law is is not the final arbiter, which we had that once in our history, then the final arbiter becomes the cannons and the guns. The rule of law must be supreme in this country. During the Clinton impeachment, we heard from the other side of the aisle about the rule of law. We disagreed with the rule of law dictated, but here there can be no question. The court orders must be enforced, and anyone who says that we shall not spend money to enforce a court order because I do not like that particular court order or we do not agree with that particular court order is subversive of liberty, subversive of the Constitution, subversive of every human right, and subversive of the very notion of American liberty and democracy. This amendment should not be agreed to. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.