Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to this bill that would, I would like to commend the gentleman from New York on the other side and the gentleman from Massachusetts for their hard work on this bill. This bill is seriously deficient because it reneges on our national commitment to create decent affordable housing. This bill provides absolutely no specific funding to make any new housing available to low income or moderate income families. My amendment, which the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] joins me in offering, would authorize 50,000 new section 8 vouchers to help low income families afford safe decent housing. We must send the appropriators a message that we believe the creation of new section 8 vouchers is a priority. I would like to thank the chairman of the subcommittee and gentleman from Massachusetts for including language in the bill so that funding will be available to renew all existing section 8 vouchers. It is vitally important that those families currently benefiting from this program not be suddenly thrown out on the street. But it is not enough. The need for housing assistance remains staggering. Today 5.3 million poor families either pay more than 50 percent of their income for rent or live in severely substandard housing. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, founder of the public housing system in our Nation, spoke eloquently in 1944 of the fact that, and I quote, ``True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men.'' FDR was right. Every family has the right to a decent home, or do we no longer believe this to be so? President Roosevelt's commitment to provide decent, safe, affordable housing to those that cannot afford the rent in the private market continued through administrations both Republican and Democratic. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George Bush all to some degree continued that commitment. But 2 years ago, the majority in Congress decided that commitment was no longer worth keeping. For the first time since the program began, no money was provided in that budget for new section 8 vouchers. Our amendment will return to the legacy of the past half century. It will authorize funding to provide for an additional 50,000 certificates, equal to the President's request. I challenge anyone to argue that tenant-based section 8 vouchers do not achieve their goals. The tenant-based section 8 program is one of the most successful housing programs in existence. Section 8 pays a portion of a qualified family's rent. Each family commits 30 percent of their income to rent. The rest is paid by the section 8 voucher. Overall rents are capped at fair market value. Thanks to section 8, families are able to afford decent safe housing; nothing extravagant and frankly sometimes not very nice at all, but much better than the alternative. For these families section 8 is more than a contract or a subsidy. It is often the foundation upon which they can build lifelong economic self-sufficiency. Section 8 allows families to enter the private housing market and choose where they live, creating better income mixes throughout our communities. Today over a million families receive section 8 vouchers, which give them the mobility to choose their own decent housing. Yet over 5 million households are defined by HUD as having worst case housing needs; that is, paying over 50 percent of their income in rent or living in severely substandard housing. Not one of these 5 million families receives any Federal housing assistance. Their need is desperate. We must not turn our backs on the realities of the housing market and our people's desperate needs. Our amendment will allow 50,000 more families to live in safe, affordable, decent housing. It is not asking for much. We only ask that today we commit to meet 1 percent of the need for affordable housing in our Nation. We can and should do more, but today, I will ask only for a very modest downpayment. Some will say even helping 1 percent will cost too much. Some will say we cannot afford to pay the $6,000 per family it would cost to provide decent housing for these families. The reality is we cannot afford to shirk this responsibility. The money is there. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget has taken the lead in pointing out the billions of dollars we spend each year on corporate welfare. The GAO recently reported that the Department of Defense has $2.7 billion in inventory items which are not needed to meet the services' operating and reserve requirements. Simply eliminating from the defense budget just the storage cost of these unnecessary inventory items would save $382 million annually, substantially more than the cost of this amendment. That is the choice before us today: Pay for outdated, archaic, inflated needs, and we can find them throughout the budget, or focus our scarce resources on programs that, without question, do much good. Which is more important, unnecessary rivets collecting dust in a warehouse somewhere or a roof over a family's head? Mr. Chairman, I ask support for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding to me. Let me just say first that the reason we put a specific amount in here, and the specific amount is the amount suggested in the President's budget, is that we believe that given the fact that in this year's budget, the budget we are living under now, there is zero appropriation for new section 8 housing, and an open-ended authorization of whatever may be necessary will not get anything from the appropriators. So we think that we should have a sum certain. I would ask the gentleman if he would, whether this amendment passes or fails, if he would join us in asking the Committee on Appropriations for a sum certain. I would ask for this amount, the gentleman may pick some other number, but a sum certain so that we know that in this budget we will at least continue our commitment to new section 18?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Davis].

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, for agreeing with the need for additional vouchers and for his agreeing to go to the Committee on Appropriations and urge additional vouchers. I would suggest, however, that we all know, that the gentleman from New York knows and I know and everyone knows, that given the fiscal stringencies in the balanced budget agreement, whatever happens to the politics of that over the next few weeks and months, that the odds of getting a real appropriation, a sizable appropriation, are very small. The odds of getting an appropriation that exceeds the amount suggested in this authorization in this amendment is, I would suggest, nil. So I would urge the gentleman to accept this amendment as a ceiling on what we can realistically expect and as an expression by the House to the appropriators that may strengthen our hand in getting some reasonable fraction of this as an appropriation. I hope the gentleman will see the reasoning of that. But, in any event, I would urge the passage of this amendment, if only to say morally that this House demands, that the House wants and knows that we need additional section 8 vouchers. I suspect that by putting a specific number in it, it really does strengthen our hand with the appropriators, although it obviously does not guarantee it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we have no other speakers. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in summary, we need more section 8 vouchers. It is the only program we have going for additional low-income and moderate- income housing units. We have 5.3 million households. That is probably 15 or 16 million people in desperate need of new housing. Last year was the first year since 1937, with the possible exception of a couple years in World War II, in which we had a zero budget for new low- and moderate-income housing. I think it imperative that we speak out by adoption of this amendment that we do not mean to make permanent this turning away from our 60 years' commitment to house our people decently. So I urge the adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am not clear on what the gentleman is suggesting. Is the gentleman suggesting that we would simply go to the Committee on Appropriations and that we would seek a different amount to put in as an amendment to this bill?

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the Velazquez amendment. Some of the reasons have been stated and I will briefly allude to them. The fact is that both amounts of money we are talking about are very small: $25 a month, $50 a month. But for people who do not have it, because they are suddenly faced with an unanticipated medical emergency, because they are in transition between homelessness and having housing, because they have just lost their job and for some reason cannot get unemployment insurance, because they have applied for public benefits but the public benefits have not come through yet, because they have lost their welfare benefits, and we have in recent years set up a myriad of ways that people can lose their welfare benefits even when they should not, because they are unemployed, for whatever reason, $25 can be a huge amount of money. There is no reason to change the current situation where the public housing authority can set the minimum and substitute a system where the person has to seek a waiver, go through the bureaucracy, and wait the time at a time of crisis in their own lives. There is no reason to do that. It really adds nothing to this bill. Second, I want to address myself to the comment made by the gentleman from Louisiana who said public housing is not permanent housing, it is not a retirement home, it is transitional housing. Well, it is not transitional housing for many people. People in public housing whose only sin is that they are making $5 or $6 or $7 an hour, they are making minimum wage or they are making $7 an hour and they cannot afford housing on the permanent market, that is permanent housing for them. Until we decide that the minimum wage ought to be a living wage, ought to be a wage where people can afford housing on the private market, and I think the people on that side of the aisle do not agree with that kind of philosophy, I do not think anybody would vote for a $12 or $13 minimum wage, I am not too sure how many people would on this side either, but until we do something like that, there are going to be millions of people in this country working 40 or 50 hours a week, paying taxes and not having enough money to get housing on the private market. For them, public housing is the only possible permanent home.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I would like to simply address something the gentleman from Texas said a moment ago. He said that while if we lower taxes, if we had lower interest rates, if we changed our general economics, you would do a lot for housing for the poor. Maybe and maybe not. I am not going to address that. The fact of the matter is that whatever we do in our general policies, maybe eventually if we change them in the right direction, I tend not to agree with the gentleman as to what the right direction is, maybe eventually we would be providing, the private sector would be building more housing for the poor. It would be very nice if that were so and if that could be made so. But the fact is that today in many, many areas of the country, maybe in the whole country, I do not know, but certainly in many areas of the country, it is simply impossible for the private sector without subsidy to produce housing affordable by low income working people, not to mention by people who may be on public assistance or on SSI or disabled or what have you. It simply is impossible in many areas of the country today for the private sector, and they will tell you that, any builder in New York or any place, in many places, they will tell you that given the cost of building, the cost of land, the cost of money, the cost of labor, et cetera, they cannot build housing other than for upper income people and maybe the top of the middle class, certainly not for low income people. As long as that is true, we are going to need government subsidized housing programs for low income and moderate income people. That was the basic idea of the Housing Act of 1937. That is still the basic idea of public policy today. I hope it remains so, that it is ultimately our responsibility, as a collective people represented through government, to help those who, given their best efforts, cannot help themselves. Should we require their best efforts? Of course. But for those who may be working at minimum wage jobs or even at jobs that pay $10 an hour, $11 an hour and cannot afford housing in the private market, we should help them. It is our duty to help them, to the extent that they cannot help themselves, because everybody has a right, assuming they contribute what they can, to food and clothing and shelter. I would add health care. Public housing may have been conceived in 1937 initially. I was not around. It may have been conceived initially as temporary until the Depression was over, until things changed. But the fact is that we need public housing today and we need it on a permanent basis for many, many people who cannot and will not be able to earn enough money to get out of it, to pay for decent housing in the private sector. For working people, this amendment is a bad idea if it were applied to them, but there are also people who are not working. What about someone who is 45 years old and is disabled? We just passed welfare reform. Under the welfare reform bill, people are mandatorily kicked off the welfare rolls after 5 years. Now, we did not pass sufficient job training funding to enable these people, all of them or most of them, to get decent jobs. We did not pass sufficient child care funding to enable single mothers with children, all of them or most of them, to be able to take care, to have someplace secure to put their kids in a decent environment when they go to work. Those things we did not do. They are too expensive. Now to add that someone who is on welfare, who is trying to get off welfare, who is trying to get a job and we have a 4.9-percent official unemployment rate in this country, the lowest it has been in decades, but what is really a 12-percent unemployment rate, if we count the people who are not officially in the job market because they have been discouraged, they could not find a job for 6 months or 8 months or 1 year and stop looking, for the people who never got into it because they have no marketable skills where they dropped out of high school and they are on street corners hustling or something, if we count those who are employed part time when they need full-time jobs, the real unemployment rate in terms of people who need jobs, want jobs and cannot get them is probably closer to 12 percent. As long as that is true, until we find a way of telling Mr. Greenspan that when we have higher economic growth, it is a good thing, not a terrible thing, that creating more jobs or higher wages is a good thing, not a bad thing, until we change those policies, until we can generate jobs for whoever wants them, we have a need for welfare programs. We have a need for low income housing programs without time cutoffs and certainly that goes for working people. So let us address those problems. Because what happens under the Moran amendment to someone who may not be working, is trying to find a job and cannot and is thrown off welfare and is thrown out of their home? Mr. Chairman, I submit this is not a very well targeted amendment, although well intentioned.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment briefly on the so- called balanced budget agreement that was reached between the President and the House and Senate Republican leadership last week. I say so- called because it is really in the nature of an agreement to agree. There are many things that are not filled in there, many questions that are not answered that we just do not know yet. But one thing that is clear is that $90 billion will have to be cut for the next 5 years from nondefense discretionary spending. We do not know how it is going to be cut, and we will not know that because those decisions will be made year by year by the Committee on Appropriations. But out of $290 billion, for everything the Government spends other than on entitlements, interest on the national debt and the military, for housing, for education, for transportation, for law enforcement, crime prevention, Head Start, issuing passports, research and development, everything that we think of when we think of what the Government does, other than entitlements and the Armed Forces, we are going to have to take $90 billion out of what is necessary to maintain the current level of services. That is going to be a major hit on our population. I simply urge caution.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am outraged that the leadership of this House has once again decided to play politics with women's lives. This bill values abusive fathers more than women's lives. This bill, as reported here, eliminated amendments made by the committee that would have helped save some women. Let me explain how this bill works. A woman becomes pregnant. While she is pregnant, the father of the fetus rapes her. He then beats her to a pulp. He throws her down the stairs, he batters her. He then disappears from the scene and abandons her. This woman, who is now severely traumatized, who is physically injured by the battering, whose doctor tells her that because of her injuries, carrying the pregnancy to term will probably result in permanent, severe physical injury, perhaps permanent paralysis, for life, decides to have an abortion. The doctor tells her the safest method of abortion is the so-called, what some people call the partial- birth abortion. It is the safest method. Other methods might kill her, might increase the chance of paralysis, but this, he says, is the safest method. This bill says, First, she cannot have that abortion that way. If she does, the doctor is criminally liable. The bill also says that the father of the child, of the fetus, who raped her, who abused her, who abandoned her, now can sue her and her doctor for damages. The abusive father is entitled to damages. In fact, he is even entitled to money for physical and emotional damages that he has suffered. This is ludicrous. It is an outrage. It is disgusting. Not only does this bill intrude, infringe, and violate the constitutional right to choose, but it rewards abusive fathers. It rewards rapists. The committee's amendment that would have said that a father who beats the woman, who abuses her, who abandons her, cannot sue her for damages, was eliminated in proceedings by the Committee on Rules. This is shameful. I urge the House to reject this bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this bill says very clearly that a fetus is more important than the physical health of the mother. But this bill is not about abortion. We all have different views. Some people view abortion as murder. Some think it is perfectly permissible. Some think it permissible up to a certain stage, others to a later stage. The Supreme Court says the constitutionally guaranteed right to choose is until viability. But this bill is not about abortion, it is about electoral politics. If an abortion is permitted under our law at 20 weeks or at 23 weeks or at 24 weeks, what moral distinction, what moral distinction is there between whether the fetus is killed in the uterus and then extracted or partially extracted and then killed? The fetus is still dead, it is an abortion. An abortion involves killing a fetus. We have different views on abortion here, but the Supreme Court, the Constitution guarantees the right to abortion. There is no moral distinction. It is purely electoral politics, an electoral politics in which the majority wishes to put the health of the mother at risk. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose this unprecedented and mean- spirited assault on the constitutional right to choose. What this bill says very clearly is that a fetus is more important than the physical health of the mother. So, let us say a woman becomes pregnant, and while she's pregnant the father rapes her, and beats her to a pulp, and throws her down the stairs. This abuse then causes severe damage to her and to the fetus, and the doctor tells her that, because of her injuries, carrying the pregnancy to term will probably result in permanent severe physical injury, perhaps leaving her sterilized or paralyzed for life. Maybe the fetus is so severely damaged that it has no chance at life. Even if the doctor determines that the best abortion procedure to protect her life and health is the one that would be banned by this bill, this woman cannot have that procedure. This woman, who is now severely traumatized, who is injured by the battering, would be forced to have another procedure that could leave her sterile, or paralyzed. The bill supporters seem to believe that it is OK. How dare any Member, have the arrogance to step in at this critical moment and say they know best, that they have the right to make this difficult decision. If she decides to have the abortion anyway, this bill would allow the father to sue her and her doctor. My amendments, which were accepted by the committee and included in the bill up until last night, would have prevented abusive fathers, or fathers who abandon women, from suing for damages. But this provision has been taken out. Some Members of this House may believe that women have abortions for trivial reasons. Some have even suggested that a woman who has had a fight with her boyfriend might have a late term abortion. That is a vile slander against every woman in America today. In fact, women who choose to have abortions do not do so lightly. Some Members of Congress may not see women as rational and moral individuals, but the Constitution still recognizes their moral and individual autonomy. That is why it prohibits governmental intrusions like this bill. But this is not about abortion. It is about electoral politics. How dare a bunch of Washington politicians presume to dictate to American women faced with a difficult situation--in many cases, with a fetus that will not be able to survive and grow--children without brains, or with brains growing on the outside of their heads--women who are faced with the prospect of death or sterility from a ruptured uterus if they don't have this procedure. These are wrenching, life- altering moments. These women have in many instances named their babies, furnished nurseries, notified grandparents, and then, in an instant, their dreams are wiped out by tragedy. Do we really want to make this situation the subject of a criminal prosecution or a law suit? Do we really want to see doctors in handcuffs? Do we really want to put doctors behind bars for doing what they believe is in the best interest of their patients? Do we really want to make women and their medical providers go to court to prove in lengthy litigation that death would have occurred in any event? Can this always be proved, and if so, how certain do you have to be? Is a 50 percent chance of death tolerable under this law? Twenty-five percent? And a threat to a woman's health or to her ability to try to have more children doesn't even rate consideration in this bill. By refusing to add an exception in order to avoid serious health consequences to the woman, the proponents of this bill are admitting that they would rather argue this issue, than ban this procedure. Shame on this House for having the arrogance to judge people in this most vulnerable and tragic of circumstances. Shame on this House for playing politics with the lives of American families.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, in typical fashion, the Republican leadership has given a terrible bill a pretty name and trotted it out as the greatest thing for working families since the invention of the 40-hour work week, which it would undermine. They say workers will have the choice of how to receive compensation for this work. What could possibly be wrong with giving working Americans more choice and flexibility? What is wrong is that in the real world where Americans work every day, our laws are their only protection from unscrupulous employers who often demand longer hours and try to avoid paying overtime. In the real world, thousands of employers skirt the overtime rules on the books every day, denying workers $19 billion a year in overtime wages. We simply cannot afford to weaken workers' protections. Here is how the bill works. An employer does not like an employee; no comp time. An employer does not want to give an employee time off; cash-out the comp time. An employer feels employees are exercising their option too frequently; revoke the comp time. This bill is not about families or flexibility, it is about paying off big business and cheating workers. It is about repealing the 40- hour work week and the 8-hour day. Vote ``no'' on the paycheck reduction act.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the efforts of citizens everywhere to protect free speech on the Internet. Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments to determine the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act [CDA], which criminalizes certain speech on the Internet. It is because of the hard work and dedication to free speech by netizens everywhere that this issue has gained the attention of the public, and now, our Nation's highest court. I have maintained from the very beginning that the CDA is unconstitutional, and I eagerly await the Supreme Court's decision on this case. I was one of the few Members of this body to vote against the Telecommunications Act, in large part, due to the CDA provision that imposes unacceptable limits on free speech. While the stated intent of this provision is to limit minors' access to indecent material, in fact, its effect will be much farther reaching. This so-called decency language will dangerously constrain electronic free speech. I still believe that it is the cyberspace equivalent to book burning. When this bill first became law, I turned my web page black to protest this dangerous assault on free speech. I have been working actively to overturn the CDA ever since. I received thousands of e-mail messages from around the world from people concerned with the threat to free speech imposed by the CDA. I pledged to join with concerned citizens all across the country to fight the CDA in Congress, in the courts, and in the chat rooms and online forums of the Internet itself. And we have. We won in Philadelphia, we won in New York, and we are now poised to win in the Supreme Court of the United States. We promised not to give up the fight, and to continue our efforts to keep the Internet free, and we have done just that. Now this case is finally before the Supreme Court. Soon we will learn of the outcome of our efforts. Have we successfully challenged this unjust act? Will the Supreme Court uphold the lower court's ruling which struck down the CDA? Will the Justices join the choir of voices who have declared this bill an indecent assault on American liberty? I believe they will. I believe they will recognize what the lower courts have already determined, that ``as the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion,'' that the CDA is unconstitutional, and that it dangerously constrains electronic free speech. I applaud everyone who has taken action to support the first amendment, and who has spoken out against this bill to ensure that future generations are able to enjoy the same rights and liberties on the Internet that we have enjoyed in other arenas of expression for the past two centuries.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to celebrate the arts in America and to call on my colleagues to fully fund the National Endowment for the Arts [NEA], the National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH], and the Institute of Museum and Library Services [IMLS]. Whether it is visual art, performance art, music, poetry, literature, or historical preservation, the NEA, the NEH, and the IMLS have all served our Nation well, and America is stronger because of them. I am proud that my district includes most of the Broadway theater and many of the nonprofit theater institutions, including Lincoln Center and the New York Shakespeare Festival. It also includes the SoHo art galleries, museums, radio and television studios, record and film companies, and hundreds of individual artists, writers, dancers, and musicians. The positive economic impact of this arts community has long been documented. The contributions they make to the economy and to the quality of life in New York is immense. In fact, when people nationally and internationally think about New York City, they often think about its cultural richness. Other cities are beginning to realize that the arts draw people into the city and provide a valuable economic boost to the local economy. As a result, mayors across the country are rushing to build arts and cultural centers in their own cities and are seeking national support for their efforts. Just as the arts community in New York receives a portion of Federal support, so too should these newly emerging artistic centers. That is just one reason why we will need to increase arts funding to expand the reach of the arts to people throughout the Nation. Another reason to support the national endowments is the nature of the projects they fund. Let me give you some examples. The NEA supported a consortium project to expand Alvin Ailey's summer dance camps for inner-city youths in Philadelphia and Chicago; the NEA supported a program to create a national model for an integrated kindergarten through sixth grade arts curriculum to improve learning in all subjects and offer new ways to engage students; the NEA supported an initiative to provide music instruction for financially disadvantaged minority children in New York City public schools; the NEA supported a program to teach playwriting to young people ages 9 to 13 in one of New York City's toughest neighborhoods; and the NEA supported a project to produce and broadcast telecasts of the public television series ``Live from Lincoln Center.'' Now it is possible for folks in Wyoming and Indiana, not just New York City, to enjoy Lincoln Center performances. Helping children learn, reaching out to disadvantaged communities, boosting the economy, and providing national access to great performances--this is what the NEA is doing in 1997 to support the arts and to improve America, and that is why we in Congress must continue our bipartisan support for the arts. In fact, more projects like these deserve to be supported by the Federal Government to inspire our young people, to encourage them to nurture their natural talents, and to live up to their potential. Therefore, not only must we preserve our cultural agencies, but we must increase their funding substantially, so that they can better serve our people. Without these cultural agencies many beneficial projects would not exist, and America would be weaker without them. Think about how the arts touch and improve all of our lives. One way to do this is to imagine what the world would be like without art. Some have suggested to me that we ought to have a national arts awareness day. A day when we try to live without art. When we wake up without music, when we work in offices without wall hangings, when TV's don't work, when the theaters and opera houses are closed, when museums and libraries don't open their doors, and when even the reading of books is not allowed. A day when all of our national monuments are cloaked in black and art is taken out of our public spaces. The Capitol building itself would have to close down, because in every corridor and on every wall there are examples of public support for the arts--statues, paintings, and historic documents all serve to enrich this building and those of us who work here. Even the thought of a day without art is frightening. So, we must all recognize how integral the arts are to our life experiences, how they serve to improve the lives of Americans, and how they enrich us as a people and as a nation. The Congress must continue its support for the arts if America, as President Clinton noted in his State of the Union Address, is to remain as a beacon, not only of liberty, but of creativity.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman. I rise to support the release of family planning funds, that have been held hostage to unwarranted anti-choice forces in the Congress for more than 4 months now. We here today are on a rescue mission. For if we fail to pass this resolution, the funds will be held hostage until July 1, 9 months into the fiscal year. This is unacceptable. This is not about spending more money or new money. It is about the previously allocated international family planning funds that have not been released. The President has certified that this delay is harming our efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies abroad. These funds must be released now. Releasing these funds will improve women's health, reduce poverty, and protect our global environment. International family planning promotes preventive health care such as prenatal care, helps women to plan and space their pregnancies farther apart, and prevents unintended pregnancies that may threaten women's health and the health of their babies. Do our programs work? As David Broder commented in the Washington Post, ``the success of the program is undeniable.'' Studies have shown for the past three decades the percentage of women using contraception in foreign countries that receive this type of assistance has risen from 10 percent to 50 percent, and the average number of children they have borne has been reduced from six to three. Some say that our international family planning efforts increase abortion. This is absolutely false. No U.S. dollars are used to provide abortion services either in the United States or abroad. In fact, it has been illegal to use U.S. funds to provide abortion services abroad since 1973. I happen to disagree with this policy, but it is the policy nonetheless. Family planning does not increase abortions, it reduces them. Senator Mark Hatfield recognizes this, World Vision recognizes this, and I believe that even most people in this Chamber recognize this. But you cannot claim to support family planning and vote against this resolution. Only passage of this resolution will lead to release of the international family planning funds. Let there be no mistake about it, this is a vote about choice, but it is not a vote about abortion. It is about a choice between supporting family planning or opposing it. It is about a choice between protecting women's lives or harming them. In fact, this is about a choice between right and wrong, and quite seriously about a choice between life and death. I urge my colleagues to choose wisely, to protect women's lives, and to support this resolution.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this bill, which would seriously harm our international family planning programs. I strongly support family planning. I voted for the previous resolution that will release the funds for family planning without condition because I believe that these funds will improve women's health, reduce poverty, and protect our global environment. But I will not vote for this bill. The supporters of this bill claim that our family planning efforts increase the number of abortions. This is simply not true. By law and by practice, U.S. funds cannot be used to provide abortion services either in the United States or abroad. AID has implemented procedures that carefully monitor the spending of these funds, and independent audits confirm that not $1 of U.S. funds is used to perform abortions. I disagree personally with this policy, but it is the policy and the law nonetheless. The real problem with this bill is that, by saying to clinics that they may not use other funds to perform abortions, it will force many health clinics which will not accept such conditions to close for lack of funding. These closed clinics will no longer help women receive prenatal care, will no longer prevent more women from dying during childbirth, will no longer help prevent unintended pregnancies and therefore will no longer help reduce the number of abortions. The number of abortions will increase, not decrease, if this bill were to pass. So if my colleagues support family planning and want these clinics to remain open, then they must oppose this completely unnecessary bill and vote against it. This bill is really about family planning, about closing family planning clinics and not about preventing the use of Federal funds from being spent on abortions, which is already against the law, which does not happen. This is an unnecessary, pernicious, and harmful bill that will simply result in more unwanted pregnancies, more fatalities among women, and more abortions.