Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, big money is a cancer on our political system that must be removed or we risk devolving into an oligarchy like so many other republics before us. It is the constant money chase and submission to the special interests that corrupts our system and makes our constituents lose faith in their government. It's why there is such disinterest in politics back home and such low voter turnout. Our constituents don't think we care about them. They think we only care about raising money. They believe that their participation, their voices, cannot count against the power of big money, and recent experience says they are right. Once upon a time, when someone wanted to run for office, the first question we used to ask was what kind of political support can you generate. Now the first question we ask is how much money can you raise. Better yet, we find a rich candidate who'll finance his or her own campaign. It's impossible to run on good ideas alone anymore, you need millions of dollars to go with them. With this system we risk electing candidates less attuned to their communities than to their big contributors. This is not a perfect bill, but it is a good first step. If we do not take this 1st step today, the history books may eventually say that like the Roman Republic, the United States had a good 200 to 250-year run at democracy, and then it degenerated into an oligarchy like all the rest. Don't let that happen. Pass Shays-Meehan and begin to restore integrity to our political process.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we all know that the major problem we are dealing with in all this campaign finance reform legislation is that the cost of campaigning, of getting a message out to the public, has gotten out of hand; and consequently, Members and challengers feel compelled to spend much of their time in an ever-increasing race of trying to get more and more money from contributors, from special interest groups, et cetera; and that has caused all the problems that we have been dealing with. TV stations use a public resource. We have given them the license to use the public air waves, a scarce public resource, because they are limited for free. Just a few years ago we gave them for nothing $77 billion to the broadcasters of additional spectrum. Senator Dole was quite outraged, and properly so, at this. Now they have the nerve to say that we should not enforce the 1971 law that said that when they sell ads to political candidates they must do it at the lowest rate they give it to anyone else. There are two loopholes to this law. One, they will sell a candidate an ad for the lowest cost; but then they will say, oh, we are going to bump the candidate from 6 p.m. the day before the election to 3 a.m. because someone else is willing to pay a higher rate, unless of course the candidate pays the premium rate to guarantee getting the 6 p.m. slot. No candidate can risk that, so everybody pays the premium rate. They have completely undermined the existing law which says they have got to pay the cheapest rate. All this bill does, and the amendment would negate, is enforce the existing law and say they must give them unpreemptible time so people can take it and it means it at the lowest rate they have sold for the last few months. Secondly, it is amazing to see that the sponsor of this amendment would say that this is a new perk for candidates. It is not a perk for candidates. It is saying that as a beginning of paying off their obligation to the public, we no longer have the equal-time doctrine, we no longer have the fairness doctrine, we no longer enforce anything that says they have got to really cover political campaigns for the public service requirement for which they get their license. They do not have to cover someone that 45 seconds per campaign or 45 seconds per election per night. We are simply saying sell the ads, but sell it as the Congress has said 30 years ago, for the lowest unit rate they sell it to anybody else. TV ads cost 80 percent of the cost of all communication to voters. There is no reason why we cannot ask these broadcasters who get, again their entire product is on public air waves, which we give them for free, we license to them for free, the least we can ask is that they enable candidates to try to conduct election campaigns for the cheapest rate they sell to other people to strengthen our democracy.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Lawrence Bartelson on the occasion of his retirement from American International Group (AIG) after thirty years of dedicated service. Born in Brooklyn on March 6, 1941, Larry graduated from Lafayette High School in 1958. After attending the Baruch School of Business and Public Administration at the City College of New York, Larry began his professional career in accounting at the Home Insurance Company. In 1971, Larry joined AIG where he worked as an accounting manager in the Investment Accounting Department. On December 3, 2001, the company honored Larry with a retirement luncheon attended by his fellow employees and friends of AIG. For most of his life, Larry lived in Brooklyn, where his sister and other family members still reside. In 1993, Larry moved to Manhattan's West Village, where he joined a local block association to promote neighborhood well-being and community preservation. Among Larry's many notable community activities is his involvement in the New York Public Library, where he has been recognized as a member of the Bigelow Society. He is also an active member of the SAGE Forty Plus Group at the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center in Manhattan. Larry is devoted to his close-knit family. Larry plans to spend his retirement years in New York City as well as his apartment in Hollywood, Florida, pursuing his various interests and enjoying the things he loves with family, friends and his partner, Bill Hevert. I am pleased to join with my friend, Lewis Goldstein, in congratulating Larry on this milestone. I wish him a productive and enjoyable retirement.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a joke. I have been a Member of Congress for almost 10 years, and I cannot remember any resolution that simply supports current law. To not repeal or roll back tax cuts, we do not need this resolution. Nothing is coming to the floor. Nothing is threatened. We do not have to do anything. The fact of the matter is that it was the Clinton budget's deficit reduction package, which the Republicans called the greatest tax increase in history in 1993, which they predicted, and I remember the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) on the floor saying this will lead to a depression, this will lead to hair-curling depression, instead led to the greatest economic boom in the history of this country, led to the lowest unemployment, lowest inflation, greatest job growth. It led to reversing the $5 trillion in debt that we incurred during the Reagan, Bush Senior, years. Instead, we got what we predicted a year ago after 8 years of the Clinton economics was going to be $5.5 trillion of surplus, and 1 year with this tax cut and with the economic recession partially brought about by this tax cut, we now have $4 trillion of that wiped out. Now they say we should not have a tax increase in a recession. Of course we should not. No one is proposing that unless they think the recession is going to last another 4 or 5 years, but the real point here is that with a $4 trillion in surplus wiped out, this country is going to face choices a couple of years down the road. Do we want another tax cut for the richest people in our country, or do we want prescription drugs coverage for seniors on Medicare? How are we going to pay for that? There is not enough money in the Bush budget for it. There is not enough money that we see in the next 10 years for prescription drugs under Medicare, not if we give more tax cuts to the richest people in our society. If we want to fully fund the education bill that we passed, we are not going to be able carry on this current economics. So we have to leave ourselves some adjustment room so we can make decisions in the future when we see do we want prescription drugs for seniors or a little more help for the billionaires among us.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Trial Lawyers Care on the opening of its headquarters in my district, located at 80 Center Street in New York City. As the city itself works to rebuild, I commend the thousands of volunteer lawyers who are helping victims' families start to put their lives back together in the aftermath of September 11th's senseless tragedies. Experienced trial lawyers from across America are generously providing free legal services to eligible September 11 terrorist attack victims who choose to make claims under the federal September 11 Victim Compensation Fund which Congress set up last year. Trial Lawyers Care, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation established for the purpose of helping these victims, and I applaud their very worthwhile efforts. By providing free legal services, 100 percent of the fund's award will go directly to the victims' family. This is an extraordinary offer for an extraordinary situation. Should any Member of Congress require more information about Trial Lawyers Care and how they may be of service to your constituents, they can be reached at 888-780-8637 and www.911LawHelp.org. Thank you to the volunteers who are helping victims' families.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Rev. Barbara Crafton, Rector of St. Clement's Episcopal Church in New York City, for her consummate service to the Hell's Kitchen community. During her 6 years at St. Clement's, Rev. Crafton has consistently and passionately served this community with grace and compassion. As a member of the Mayor's Office of Midtown Enforcement and a member of the Board of Directors of Integrity, an organization of gay and lesbian Episcopalians, Mother Crafton is an extremely valued and well-respected community leader. In response to the tragic events of last year, Rev. Crafton has been an active volunteer at Ground Zero, providing meals and ministering to the needs of rescue workers. Included among the many programs and events initiated by Rev. Crafton is ``A Celebration of Heroism and Strength,'' which benefited the families of the heroes of September 11. In addition to providing unwavering support to her community, Mother Crafton is also a nationally acclaimed author, actress and director. Barbara Crafton is a passionate, empathetic, and caring priest as well as a devoted and loving mother, wife, and grandmother. Her dedication to our community has been felt far from the confines of St. Clement's. Due to issues of health it is no longer possible for Rev. Crafton to serve as the Rector of St. Clement's. We know that the recuperation of Mother Crafton is of the utmost importance at present, and we wish her a full recovery and the best of luck in all her future endeavors.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this year, the Canadian Pacific Railway Holiday Train embarked on its third annual ``journey of goodwill'' to collect food throughout Canada and the United States for those most in need. The two previous drives have collected 18 tons of food, and have raised more than $500,000 to combat hunger. On December 4th, one of the three trains traveling throughout the United States and Canada embarked on its journey from the Fresh Pond Junction Rail Yard in Queens, New York. There, the Canadian Pacific Railway hosted a special ceremony honoring and remembering the heroes of September 11th. I would like to sincerely thank the Canadian Pacific Railway for having one of their beautifully decorated trains originate in New York City. This was a tribute to the men and women who lost their lives in the September 11th tragedy, as well as a tribute to their families. The victims' families were invited to the ceremony, and Christmas trees were given to all of the families of the firefighters and police officers who were killed. In addition, Canadian Pacific Railway donated $100,000 to the NYSE Fund for Fallen Heroes. This kindness and generosity is just the most recent example of Canadian Pacific Railway's long standing commitment to the people of New York. I commend the Canadian Pacific Railway on their benevolent gestures towards the city of New York, and thank them for not only supporting the United States and our families in this time of tragedy, but also for continuing their plight to feed the hungry.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, with Christmas just around the corner, the Republican leadership is once again handing out its presents to the large corporations. That might not be so bad if there were any economic value to this so-called stimulus bill. We should be putting money into the hands of people most likely to spend it, the unemployed and those people living paycheck to paycheck. Instead, this bill would give billions to corporations, hoping they will make products for people who do not have the money to buy the products. That is not stimulus, that is corporate giveaway. Even the portions of the bill directed toward rebuilding New York are a disappointment. They are simply the same tax incentives that we passed just last week on the victims tax relief bill. As I noted then, while we welcome these measures in aiding our long-term economic revitalization, they do not provide the immediate relief that New York desperately needs. My distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), has a substitute that has just what we need today. In particular, he would address the devastation our small businesses are facing now. The gentleman from New York's provisions would help small businesses survive the transitional period until Lower Manhattan is rebuilt and larger businesses return to the area. Only then will their customers return. But this bill just tells them to wait a few years. By then it will be too late. Mr. Speaker, this bill is nothing new. It follows the tired old Republican script, provide as much money to the wealthy and to the large corporations as possible and then claim there is not enough for the people who really need it. Vote ``no'' on this irresponsible bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, lower Manhattan, as we all know, is devastated by the attacks on the World Trade Center. Over 20 million square feet of office was destroyed and another 15 million rendered unusable, and 125,000 jobs out of the 300,000 private sector jobs in lower Manhattan were destroyed. It will take a strong private-public partnership to revive lower Manhattan economically. A package of tax incentives, intelligently arranged, would stimulate private investment in the area. The Houghton bill and the proposals by Senator Schumer and Clinton, with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), should be seen in tandem. The Houghton bill is important and constructive for the long-term economic strength of New York, but does little, if anything, for our immediate critical needs. The Schumer-Clinton-Rangel package contains measures that are vital for the immediate survival of small businesses in lower Manhattan. The Houghton package represents an important element of the package. We need to nurse lower Manhattan back to health, but before businesses will return to lower Manhattan, we must rebuild the neighborhood's infrastructure in utilities and transportation. We must rebuild power lines, phone systems, sewers and water mains. We have to restore public transportation. This will take time. Utility facilities are so badly damaged that now cables guarded by police over land are the only facilities bringing power to downtown. We are literally one snowplow away from a blackout in lower Manhattan. Small businesses are in critical shape and need an immediate boost. The Houghton boost will not help the small businesses survive the transitional period until the neighborhood is rebuilt and their sales recover. We must ease the period of transition until larger businesses return to the area. Small businesses in lower Manhattan will lose an estimated $5 billion in sales in the last quarter of 2001 alone. Many have seen their sales decline by up to 80 percent because of disruption and damage to the area. Mr. Speaker, 10,000 of the 14,000 small businesses in lower Manhattan are at risk of failure within the next several months as a direct result of the attack. If we do not give them help to enable them to survive, the longer-term proposals in the Houghton bill will come too late to revive lower Manhattan, because if 10,000 small businesses fail in lower Manhattan, the larger businesses will not want to return and residents will not want to return. The elements of the Houghton bill are excellent and important for our long-term needs, but must be supplemented by the provisions for short- term aid, especially long-term grants, especially business grants to our small businesses and the other elements of the Rangel-Clinton- Schumer package. That package could provide immediate assistance for these businesses through expansion of the work opportunity tax credit. The work opportunity tax credit expansion and the cash grants are the two things we need immediately. So I urge the House to adopt the Houghton bill, but to be under no illusion that the Houghton bill, absent the work opportunity tax credit of the Rangel bill and absent large and immediate infusion of cash grants to small businesses, will save the situation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct. I opposed the House version of this bill precisely because it failed to live up to the House's commitment and in fact repealed the requirement in the original supplemental bill that we had earlier passed to provide at least $20 billion in relief and recovery costs to the victims of the September 11 attack and to the people of New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Thankfully, we still have a chance to improve the bill and increase funding for areas of critical need, and that is why we should support this motion to instruct. Now is not the time to artificially cap the costs of this crisis. If it costs more than $40 billion, we ought to provide more. We should not be bound to an artificial limit that was agreed to 3 days after the attack. Today we know that in fact we do need more funds to help New Yorkers, to aid small businesses, to protect against chemical and biological attacks and to substantially increase our national security. Some say we in New York do not need more funds than provided in this bill now; but we do, now. Yes, sufficient funds are flowing for the cleanup and the physical reconstruction, but not for the 100,000 people who lost their jobs as a direct result of the attack; not for the 10,000 small businesses at risk in Lower Manhattan. The Small Business Administration is proud it has given out over 17,000 loan applications, but it has made only 360 loans. Our small businesses need help, cash grants, now. Next spring will be too late. They may not exist by next spring. Let us pass this motion to instruct. Let us live up to our commitments and let us be proud to support a bill that meets the desperate needs of our constituents and the desperate needs of our country. I urge support for the motion to instruct.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Matthew Foreman for his dedicated and talented leadership of the Empire State Pride Agenda (ESPA), New York's statewide lesbian and gay political organization. Under Matt's leadership, ESPA has made significant strides in empowering the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and protecting civil rights for all New Yorkers. The Empire State Pride Agenda strives to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They have worked to secure equality for gay men, lesbians and their families and communities and to promote their political, economic, cultural, and social well being. In the four years that Matt has served as Executive Director of ESPA, the organization has been a driving force in ensuring the rights of gay and lesbian New Yorkers: in negotiating New York City's comprehensive domestic partner law; passing a statewide hate crimes law; repealing a 150-year old consensual sodomy statute; obtaining nearly $6 million in state funding for lesbian and gay health and human services; and in enacting local non-discrimination laws and policies in Buffalo, Ithaca, Nassau County, and Westchester County. Prior to joining the Pride Agenda in 1997, Matt served as Executive Director of the NYC Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project, the nation's leading lesbian and gay crime victim assistance agency. He is a founder of the Heritage of Pride, which organizes New York City's Gay Pride events, including the world-famous annual Pride Parade down Fifth Avenue. He also served for many years on the board of Dignity/NY, an organization of lesbian and gay Roman Catholics. Those who have had the pleasure of working with Matt know of his tremendous energy and heartfelt dedication to his work. A man of unusual integrity and drive, we New Yorkers--gay and straight alike--have each benefited from his leadership in the fight for equal rights and equal protection under the law. I am proud to have joined him in many of those fights, and I am pleased to stand here today to thank Matt for his tireless work. I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution condemning the terrorist outrages committed by the Palestinian terrorist groups and expressing our solidarity with Israel. Mr. Speaker, there can be no peace and no real negotiations as long as such terrorist attacks continue. Mr. Arafat denounces these terrorist attacks but operates a revolving door prison system, that encourages the terrorists to continue. He then lionizes the terrorist murderers and, in fact, gives death benefits and pensions to the families of the suicide bombers. He is obviously not honest in his opposition to terrorism, and he permits it to continue and, indeed, promotes it. Mr. Speaker, there can be no moral equivalency between the deliberate attacks of the terrorists on Israeli civilians and the unfortunate deaths of civilians who are victims when Israel attempts to attack the terrorists to prevent further terrorist attacks. Mr. Arafat must now be held to destroy the terrorist infrastructure now. If Arafat does not do this very quickly, then Israel in all likelihood will take upon itself the necessity of doing so. Israel will have to exercise its inherent right of self-defense, as the United States is now doing in Afghanistan, and that will greatly escalate the situation. The key to the Oslo agreement for peace talks was the renunciation of violence by both sides as leverage in negotiations. Israel has renounced that violence. Arafat, obviously, has used it as a tool. After Prime Minister Barak made a breathtaking offer of concession to Israel last year, Arafat reacted not by agreeing, not by a counteroffer, but by starting a war which has escalated into a war against civilians. I support this resolution. We must stop that war. Israel, if necessary, must exercise its right of self-defense to stop that war against civilians, and no one on earth can tell a sovereign nation not to fight to protect its citizens against the kind of terrorist murderers who murdered people in Jerusalem last week and in New York City on September 11.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on September 18 the President signed a supplemental appropriations bill that provides, quote, ``that not less than one-half of $40 billion should be for disaster recovery activities and assistance related to the terrorist acts in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania.'' The bill before us today welshes on this solemn pledge and amends the law to cut almost in half the $20 billion previously appropriated. To add insult to injury, the pending rule will not allow the bipartisan amendment to restore the $10 billion cuts to redeem the $20 billion pledge by the Congress and the President even to be debated on the floor of the House. Congressional leaders and the President have repeatedly stressed their intentions to provide more than the promised $20 billion aid to New York, just not now. The funds will come eventually. Be patient. Trust us, they say. But the funds are desperately needed now, not in 6 months or a year. We need funds now for grants to enable small businesses to survive. Lower Manhattan could lose 10,000 of its 14,000 small businesses in the next 6 months. The victims of the attack need unemployment benefits and medical insurance now, not next year. Small business owners are making decisions now whether to try to keep going or to shut the business. Large businesses must decide whether to return to downtown eventually or to seek permanent quarters elsewhere now. And residents are debating whether or not to return to Lower Manhattan. They need to know whether there is a commitment on which they can depend to rebuild Lower Manhattan. How can we expect them to trust a commitment from people who are today breaking their solemn pledge of only 2 months ago? Who in this Chamber would bet his or her family's future on such a commitment from such people? Mr. Speaker, the honor of this House is at stake today. We must vote down this rule so the Members may vote on whether to break our word and welsh on our solemn pledge to the immediate victims of the attack on the Nation, or whether to redeem the honor of the House. Let the House not dishonor itself without the Members at least being permitted to vote on it. In his inaugural address, the President said under his administration we would not cross to the other side of the road when we passed the injured traveler on the road to Jericho. Today under this rule, not only have we paused to cross to the other side, but, indeed, we are telling many of those injured travelers, drop dead.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the scene of devastation my colleagues just saw is in my district. Many of the dead and injured were my neighbors and friends. Many of the newly unemployed and the at-risk small businesses are my constituents. This bill welshes on a solemn pledge made to the people of New York a few months ago. It amends the bill passed by the House in September to cut in half the $20 billion appropriated for New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Congressional leaders and the President have repeatedly stressed their intentions to provide more than the $20 billion in aid to New York, just not now. The funds will come eventually. Be patient, trust us, they say; but the funds are desperately needed now, not in 6 months. We need funds now for grants to enable small businesses to survive. Lower Manhattan could lose 10,000 of its 14,000 small businesses in the next 6 months. The victims of the attack need unemployment benefits and health insurance now, not next year. Small business owners are making decisions now, whether to try to keep going or to shut their businesses. Large businesses must decide whether to return to downtown eventually or whether to seek permanent quarters elsewhere now. Residents are debating now whether or not to return to Lower Manhattan. They all need to know now whether there is a commitment on which they can depend, on which they can risk their lives and livelihoods, to rebuild Lower Manhattan. How can we expect them to trust a commitment from people who are today breaking their solemn pledge of only 2 months ago? Who in this Chamber would bet his or her family's fortune on such a commitment? Mr. Chairman, the honor of the House is at stake. We must vote for this amendment. We must not pass this bill in this form so that we can redeem the honor of the House and not welsh on the commitment that was made and signed into law only 2 months ago. Despite the efforts of people like the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), who have done wonderful work here, and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and others and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the honor of this House is still at stake. I urge the Members to redeem it today with a proper vote.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have voted against every Department of Defense appropriations bill since I have been in this Congress. I have not opposed these bills because I do not believe in a strong national defense; on the contrary, I believe in a vigorous defense, a strong military, and proper treatment of our men and women in uniform, including good pay, decent housing, and appropriate benefits. I have objected, however, to the excessive spending on items that are not critical to our defense. I have opposed spending billions of dollars on missile defense systems that threaten our security more than protect it. I have opposed the development of three fighter aircraft simultaneously at such a high cost that it threatens other crucial areas of our security. I have opposed supporting excessive military infrastructure that the last three Secretaries of Defense have told us is unnecessary to meet current needs. I have opposed the force structure that was based on a flawed two-war strategy that failed to consider the practical challenges facing America's vital interests. Recently, Secretary Rumsfeld has called for an overhaul of this flawed strategy. In short, I have argued for a smaller and more efficient U.S. military, more fitted to the actual threats likely to be faced by this country than to the no longer existing threats of an invasion through the Fulda Gap in Europe. I believe America would have been better served had our military spending been used more wisely over the past 10 years. I had intended, however, to vote today in favor of this defense appropriation bill. It would have been my first vote in favor of a defense appropriation bill. Our country has been attacked, and we should all support the war effort. We must all support the efforts of our men and women in uniform during the current war in Afghanistan. I understand their need for support during this critical time, and I want to vote to give them the resources they need to meet the challenges they face and also to increase security at home. I support the pay increases and I support fully funding health care for military retirees. I support providing funds to aid in the dismantlement of nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union, and I support many of the new counterterrorism activities. Unfortunately, I cannot in good conscience vote for this bill today because of the supplemental funding provision included in the bill that actually cuts funding that was intended to help New York recover from the terrorist attacks on September 11. The bill before the House today breaks the solemn pledge; not only breaks it but repudiates the solemn pledge made to the people of the State that suffered the brunt of the attack on our Nation. It amends the bill passed by this House in September and signed into law by the President in September that appropriated $40 billion, and that said at least half that $40 billion had to be used for reconstruction and recovery efforts in the States of New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. This supplemental bill, included in this appropriations bill, welshes on that pledge and actually amends the law to cut that funding roughly in half to about $10 billion. This is outrageous and, quite frankly, shocking to those of us who represent districts that took the brunt of the attack on September 11 and are still suffering from it. For that reason, I will vote against this bill, though I support the other provisions, and I had hoped to be able to vote for the first time for a defense appropriation bill. But because of the cutting in half of funding to New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania in the supplemental portion of this bill, I am going to have to vote against it, quite reluctantly.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, in the 2 months since September 11, we have not passed an aviation security bill because of one issue: Should Congress sit back and allow private security companies to continue to provide the so-called security at our airports? Or should we mandate that security be handled by professional Federal law enforcement personnel? These private security companies, despite what people say about Federal supervision, would not work. They have committed thousands of screening violations. They have been charged millions of dollars in fines by the supervisors, and yet they are even now failing to conduct proper background checks, hiring convicted felons and lying about it. The Democratic substitute will make our airports secure by entrusting security to professional law enforcement officials. It is not an unreasonable request. The Senate voted for it 100-to-nothing. Unfortunately, the House Republican leadership is putting the lives of millions of Americans at risk by opposing Federal airport security on the ideological grounds that we should not increase the number of Federal employees. I do not recall anyone objecting in 1942 to plans to hire 10 million new government employees in order to enlarge the Army and the Navy to create additional divisions and air wings to fight World War II. The argument is just that absurd. All security functions are, and should be, handled by the Federal Government, the FBI, the CIA, the Coast Guard, the Border Patrol, the INS, the Armed Forces, all except our airport security. Nobody advocates hiring mercenary soldiers or sailors or private police to replace the FBI. The results of making an exception for airline security are now all too evident. The American people demand airline safety. The American people demand a Federal enforcement force. And they will not stand for petty political considerations blocking proper law enforcement and proper safety to protect our lives when we fly. I urge my colleagues to vote for law and order. I urge my colleagues to vote for airline safety. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic substitute.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, expressing the sense of the Congress that the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor should be presented to the public safety officers who have perished and select other public safety officers who deserve special recognition for outstanding valor above and beyond the call of duty in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001. The ruthless attacks on the United States by an organized band of terrorists stands in stark contrast to tremendously heroic efforts of our public safety officers who gave their lives so that others may live. Our firefighters, police, and emergency rescue personnel rushed to the scene and rescued thousands of people in what was probably the greatest rescue operation in history. Many lives were lost, but many, many more were saved, thanks to the courage of those we seek to honor here today with this resolution. Their actions are not simply commendable, they should serve as the definition of bravery. These men and women ran into not just a burning building, but two of the tallest buildings in the world that had just been hit by jet airplanes full of jet fuel. The flames were so hot they actually melted steel. Tragically, many victims chose certain death by jumping from the towers to escape the blazing heat. Yet into this heat our firefighters charged. We have heard stories of firefighters who climbed 60, 70, even 80 stories to rescue victims. As survivors came down the stairs, they told the stories of firefighters last seen headed up the stairs. Countless people have come forward to acknowledge that firefighters and police officers saved their lives on September 11. Tragically, many of them were on the scene when the towers came down all around them. They made the ultimate sacrifice, as they too became victims of the terrorist attacks. And even the collapse of these mammoth buildings was not enough to scare off our public safety officers. After the buildings came down, again police, firefighters and rescue personnel were on the scene, rescuing those whom they could reach, evacuating the area, tending to the injured, and dousing flames that threatened others. Thankfully, the media has done a wonderful job of telling their stories and making the public aware of the heroes amongst us. Sadly, there are too many stories to tell, because the magnitude of the tragedy was so great. It is for us here today to once again honor their sacrifice and bestow high honor upon these American heroes. This bill will express the sense of the Congress that the President should award and present, in the name of Congress, a Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor to those public safety officers who were killed in the terrorist attacks on September 11 or who have earned special recognition for outstanding valor above and beyond the call of duty. The bill urges the President to work with the State and local elected officials and the various police and fire commissions in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia to select those individuals who should be awarded the Medal of Valor. I want to thank the majority for bringing this resolution to the floor in an expeditious manner, and I want to commend the sponsor of the resolution, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the sponsor of this bill. (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. It is a reasonable bill that is based on a bipartisan agreement between members of the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on the Judiciary. The bill passed the Committee on the Judiciary by a voice vote. Prior to April 1, 1995, refugees accepted for resettlement into the United States were allowed to bring their sons and daughters, even those above the age of 21, so long as they had never married and were members of the refugee parent's household. On April 1, 1995, the INS changed its interpretation of the then existing law to exclude children who were over 21, even if they were unmarried and living with their parents. Mr. Speaker, in the case of South Vietnamese combat veterans and others who had suffered long terms in reeducation camps because of their wartime associations with the United States, this imposed a particularly harsh burden on the refugees and their children. These children had already been without their fathers throughout the time they were in reeducation camps, in some cases for 10 or 15 years. The new rule was particularly harsh on young women. In Vietnamese society, a 21- or 22-year-old unmarried woman either lives with her parents or she is regarded as vulnerable and unprotected. Recognizing these realities, Congress has three times adopted the McCain amendment, which changes the INS interpretation of the law, so that refugees who are survivors of reeducation camps can once again be accompanied by their unmarried young sons and daughters. Due to drafting mistake, the provision excluded sons and daughters who were mistakenly rejected before April 1, 1995. This bill will fix this problem once and for all, simply by enacting the very same rules for pre-April 1995 cases that already apply by law to cases after April 1, 1995. It is simple legislation, and it cures an injustice. It harms nobody, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this country is united in supporting the determination of President Bush to fight the terrorists across the world, to fight all those terrorist groups, as he said, with global reach. Apparently, however, the State Department has not gotten the message. What are we to make of the fact that the State Department incessantly criticizes Israel for attacking terrorists who have attacked civilians in Israel in exactly the way the United States is trying to apprehend and kill Osama bin Laden and his followers; and the State Department spokesman says, ah, it is different, because there is an agreement with Israel to negotiate with the Palestinians. When the Palestinians engage in terror and break their agreement not to use violence, apparently our position is that Israel should remain defenseless and do nothing to reply; either do nothing or face the condemnation of our State Department. The State Department should get on message with the President and the rest of the United States that is opposed to terror and thinks that people who are attacked by terrorists have the right to self-defense.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Interior Appropriations bill. It is far from perfect, but it is thankfully free of the most objectionable provisions we have seen the last several years. I want to take special note of the modest increase once again granted to the National Endowment for the Arts, Challenge America Grant. This is a very important program that helps bring the arts to areas of this country that have traditionally been under-served. I'm happy to see this vital program continuing to be supported. At the same time, however, I can't help but be disappointed that the other activities of the NEA will continue to receive flat funding. After years of contentious debate, I suppose we could be thankful that at least it's not a cut. But in reality, it is a cut. Level funding means that the resources that the NEA needs to do its job get stretched thinner year after year. I appreciate the hard work of the appropriators, but I hope that in the future we can work to increase the NEA's budget to a level that would enable it to fulfill its core mission of nurturing work that would not, on its own, receive popular support. At times, this may mean supporting forms of expression that we ourselves may not agree with. But that is one way we promote a free society. A true National Endowment for the Arts would play a vital role in nursing back to health the devastated arts community of New York in the wake of the September 11th attacks. Broadway may be rebounding, but the performance artists and the small art galleries, who have no marketing campaign behind them, are suffering. A fully funded NEA could be the key to restoring this once thriving arts community and drive the economic recovery of New York. But unless we make a commitment to dramatically increase its budget, it will not have the ability to lead these efforts. However, the arts are not just an economic engine. They also provide the emotional and spiritual lift that we have all needed this past month. In the wake of the attacks, music halls around the country were packed. A crying nation flocked to the theater to laugh again. People went to dance concerts and museums for a sense of community and emotional release. In times of crisis, the arts can provide comfort in a frightening world. I salute the appropriators for supporting Challenge America. But I caution, if we do not support the other vital elements of the NEA, the flourishing arts communities we have turned to in recent weeks will surely whither away.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) for bringing this resolution to the floor. Mr. Speaker, on September 11, I was in Washington when I watched on television the carnage in the middle of my own district in New York at the World Trade Center. September 11 is a day that will never be forgotten. Over 5,000 of our friends, neighbors, family members, heroes died while doing nothing but going to work in what may be the greatest one-day tragedy in the history of the United States. We all have spoken about the heroes, the police officers, the firefighters, the emergency medical people who showed their heroism on that day, who showed their heroism which Americans always show when called upon to do so. There were also a lot of people who were not heroes that day. They were just ordinary, plain men and women who went to work, did not realize what was going to happen. It was just an ordinary day for them. They left in the morning, they kissed their wives, their husbands and children good-bye and they never came home and never will come home. This attack on the United States was not a military attack. It was an attack on civilians. It was a deliberate attempt, a successful attempt, to kill as many American civilians as possible for the simple and great crime of being Americans. This we will never forget and we must never forget. We must not allow ourselves to forget how vulnerable we have become and how we must change that vulnerability. We must not allow ourselves to forget that it is now incumbent upon us in the memory of the people who have fallen, who have given their lives to root out terrorism from this world, to take away the ability of the terrorists to do it again because they will do it again if they can. We must persevere in this war until we have removed the ability of the terrorists, wherever they may be, whether in Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever, to again attack the United States and wreak havoc on our citizens. I am glad we are proclaiming September 11 as United We Stand Remembrance Day, so we can always remember every year those of our fellow citizens who died simply for being Americans, those of our fellow citizens who died as heroes in trying to save their fellow citizens, and we may also remember the treacherous attack upon our country and resolve that the United States will never be caught unprepared again, and that the United States will rid the world of this scourge of nihilistic terrorism. I have thousands of families in my district that need not only our thoughts and our prayers, but a helping hand and a shoulder to lean on in this time of crisis. I am confident that they will get that shoulder from their fellow Americans. I thank the Members of this House, and I urge the adoption of this resolution.