Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, rather than waste time, I will withdraw the remarks.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, let me say that most of what the gentleman from Colorado was saying is irrelevant to the point that we are making. The relevance of the balanced budget, the merits of the economics of both sides of the House and of the President are not what is at issue here. What is at issue is an abuse of the rules of the House. The procedure for suspending the rules and what we call martial law is for an emergency. Instead, it is being used for every single day of this Congress, every single day of this Congress, not to give Members the right to read the bills, to have a bill on the floor without a 1- day layover so we can read them and look at them, to take bills away from committees, put them on the floor without consideration. In an emergency, maybe. The gentleman says it is an emergency. The Government will shut down unless there is a continuing resolution. No. 1, why do we not have a continuing resolution, instead of lasting a week or two, that lasts until a budget agreement is reached or for the balance of the year? But forgetting that, if that is the emergency, why does the gentleman not ask for a rule that suspends the 1-day rule for 1 day for this bill? Not for another few weeks and keep it going that way. The gentleman says it is within the rules to suspend the rules. Of course. There is that emergency provision, but this is an abuse of it. Lots of things can be done legally. The Reichstag passed the Enabling Act to give certain powers to the chancellor legally. That was an abuse of an emergency provision. Look what it led to. I do not compare this to that, but it is the same abuse that eliminates democratic procedures. There is no necessity for it. Let them have a 1-day suspension, if necessary, so we can do this continuing resolution that is made necessary by the irresponsibility of the Republicans by not bringing it up earlier and by refusing lengthy CR's. But let us not let that excuse be used to say we need to suspend the rules so that the Speaker can at any time bypass the committee, bring brand new legislation to the floor without even a day for Members to read it and a day for the Members of the public to read it. That, sir is an abuse of the Members and of the public.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I said those remarks were . . . I did not say he was.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the gentleman from Colorado are irrelevant . . . He talks about the suspension of the rules, as if----

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, earlier today I was unavoidably away from the Chamber and missed a number of recorded votes. On rollcall No. 73, the Bryant of Tennessee amendment, I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 74, the Velazquez amendment, I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall No. 75, the Gallegly amendment, I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 76, the Chabot amendment, I would have voted ``yes''; and on rollcall No. 77, the Gallegly amendment, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule. I had filed two important amendments with the Rules Committee be made in order. Although these amendments have drawn bipartisan support in this House, and far reaching support from religious organizations, such as the U.S. Catholic Conference and major Jewish and Protestant organizations, the Rules Committee did not see fit to allow debate on either of them. This decision is especially troubling because, unless these major flaws in this bill are corrected, this country will inevitably deport those fleeing persecution back into the hands of their oppressors. The first amendment I proposed would have ensured that individuals subject to deportation as accused terrorists would have a reasonable opportunity to answer those charges, with appropriate due process. Under the bill as reported, an alien, including a permanent resident who may have resided in the United States for decades, accused of being a terrorist may be removed based on classified evidence that the accused may not review. In fact, the accused need not be provided with so much as a declassified summary of the information. Moreover, the bill provides for a special panel of attorneys who would be appointed by the court and precleared to review the classified information, but who could not discuss that vital evidence with their clients. All such evidence would be reviewed by the court in camera and ex parte. While deporting alien terrorists must remain a high priority, experience demonstrates that there is no need to give the Attorney General the unchecked power to declare individuals as terrorists and deport them. My amendment follows the approach taken by the Congress in enacting the Classified Information Procedures Act [CIPA], a statute that has worked well in criminal cases which have a higher burden of proof. In fact, the Judiciary Committee received no evidence that CIPA had not worked well in practice. Under CIPA, if the Government believes some of the evidence is too sensitive to reveal, it may present the accused with a summary of the evidence that would provide the accused with the same ability to prepare a defense. If no such summary is possible, that information may not be used in the case. Without this amendment, H.R. 2202 will establish the modern equivalent of the ``Star Chamber'' court, in which the accused could be deported without the opportunity to know the charges or evidence and with no realistic opportunity to answer those charges. My second amendment would have modified the procedure for expedited exclusion of individuals arriving at the border without appropriate documents. The bill presumptively considers such individuals to be presumptively engaged in immigration fraud and allows their exclusion merely on the unreviewed judgment of an immigration officer and his or her supervisor. That false presumption actually gets the case backward. It is precisely those who are fleeing persecution who are least likely to receive proper travel papers, whether they are fleeing coercive population policies in China or religious persecution in Iran. Their fate should not be left to the unreviewed judgment of an immigration officer and his or her supervisor. My amendment would have ensured that fraud is controlled without this Nation sending individuals who are truly fleeing persecution into the hands of their persecutors. I believe that, while all Americans want us to do everything we can to ensure that our immigration laws are respected and enforced, they do not want us to violate individual rights in ways that would send innocent people back into the hands of repressive governments. Many of our families arrived on these shores seeking a better life of freedom and justice. We violate that basic American birthright if we pass these draconian and unnecessary provisions. At the very least, this House deserves the opportunity to examine whether there is a better, more just way to achieve the important end of ensuring the strict enforcement of our immigration laws. I urge the rejection of this closed rule.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, today we take up a massive bill to radically alter our Nation's immigration laws in a way that is more responsive to hysteria and prejudice than to reason and fact. Let there be no mistake: This Nation has every right and obligation to control our borders and to enforce our immigration laws. But absurd boondoggles, like building a giant fence, mindless cruelty, like sending legitimate refugees back to be murdered or tortured by their oppressors, and good old-fashioned Xenophobia, have nothing to do with legitimate protection of our borders. Immigration has not destroyed this country. New arrivals have long contributed to the social fabric and economic vitality of our communities. There are some things we should be doing to make life better for all Americans, like strengthening our worker protections laws, or cracking down on abuses of some of the employment-based visa programs. But the majority apparently has no interest in helping working people, only in setting people against each other. At the very leagues we need to split this bill, as the Senate has done, and not mix legal with illegal immigration issues. That is a fundamentally important step to take so we can debate the issues properly. I had planned to offer two amendments today which would have mitigated some of the most unfair, unjust, and downright un-American provisions of this bill. My amendments were good faith attempts to address the concerns that led the authors of this bill to write those provisions, but would have avoided some of the injustices those provisions will inevitably bring about. Unfortunately, the majority did not see fit to allow these amendments to be debated or voted upon on the House floor. One of the these amendments would have changed the so-called expedited exclusion provision of this legislation. Under this bill, if someone comes to this country with improper documents, gets off at the airport without valid documents or with improper documents or no documents, he is to be examined on the spot by an immigration officer, by the fellow at the table, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, and that follow, who is expected to know in detail the political situation, the racial situation, the war or not situation in every country in the world, will decide on the spot whether he has established the right to asylum based on showing a legitimate fear of persecution if he goes back home, without an opportunity for a lawyer, perhaps not speaking English, without an opportunity to get witnesses, without an opportunity to collect documents, without any opportunity. The appeal from a negative decision would go to the supervisor on the spot, and then he would be sent right back. Now, if you think about it, this is exactly backward. The people who are most in need of political asylum, who are most likely to be tortured or murdered if they are sent back, are the people who fled from a tyrannical foreign government, who fled under the guns of the East German border guards, or fled from the gestapo or the KGB or the Savak or whatever secret police there are in other countries around the world today. They are precisely the people who are not going to have proper documents, duly stamped, notarized and cross-signed by the gestapo or the KGB or the Savak or by whatever secret police in a separate country. They are the ones we are going to be selecting here to send right back. My amendment, which unfortunately is not going to be heard on the floor today, would have provided some basic due process, one hearing, one appeal, one opportunity, but a real opportunity for them to show the evidence and have an opportunity to show the reality if it is true they would be persecuted back home. Instead, we are negating that altogether for the most endangered people. The second amendment would have said that the procedure for expelling, for deporting alien terrorists, people the prosecution believes are terrorists, would have had some basic due process. Under this bill, as under a provision taken out of the terrorist bill, if someone is an alien, has been here 35 years, not a citizen, an alien, and the Government thinks he is a terrorist, there is a hearing before a judge. But you can use secret evidence. You can use secret evidence without any opportunity to reply, without a summary that gives him the opportunity to make as good a defense as if you did not. And if even that is too dangerous in the opinion of the prosecution, you can use the evidence even without a summary. In other words, someone can be hauled before a court and say ``We won't tell you what group you allegedly belong to, we won't tell you what we think you did, we won't tell you who is accusing you, we won't tell you what the evidence is, we won't tell you who the witnesses are; go defend yourself.'' Obviously unconstitutional, totally un-American. At least we should have used the provisions of the Classified Intelligence Procedure Act, which gives basic due process to people we think are atomic spies or Mafia kingpins. That would have given some basic due process. Unfortunately, this was not permitted on the floor. This bill is full of such provisions. I urge my colleagues to rethink and provide basic due process in any immigration or any other bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was unavoidably detained because the 1-hour flight from New York took 4. I consequently missed three rollcall votes. Had I been present for rollcall No. 68 on the previous question, I would have voted ``no''; had I been present for rollcall No. 69 on the Travel Office Reimbursement, I would have voted ``yes''; had I been present for rollcall No. 70, the Defense of Taiwan Resolution, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to debate the habeas corpus provisions. The fact of the matter is, as I recall, we already passed that bill on the floor of this House. I disapproved of it, but it is a separate debate, a separate question. What is involved in this amendment, what is involved in this amendment is doing what the terrorism bill, to have a provision, the most important thing, inviting terrorism, which is to stop the fundraising here of terrorist groups. The habeas corpus bill passed in a different bill.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, some of us were opposed to the Hyde bill, as originally written, the Hyde-Barr bill, because although we shared the goal of opposing terrorism, we shared the goal of stopping fundraising for terrorist organizations, such as Hamas or Hezbollah, in the United States, we shared the goal of expeditiously deporting aliens engaged in terrorism, we were very concerned about what we perceived and believed to be the overbroad nature of the bill that would enhance the power of the Federal Government and decrease the civil liberties of law-abiding American citizens. Many of the provisions of the Barr amendment that passed yesterday took out the provisions that concerned us. But, in my opinion, the Barr amendment went somewhat too far in that it took out the provisions that deal with terrorism. It took out the provisions that say you cannot raise funds in the United States for terrorist organizations abroad, and it took out the provision that enables the expeditious deportation of alien terrorists. The substitute that we have here today agrees with the Barr amendment in removing from the bill all the provisions that the Barr amendment removes with respect to wiretapping, enhanced power for the FBI, and so forth. But it restores the two key antiterrorist provisions, albeit with greater protections for civil liberties than in the Hyde amendment. Specifically, it restores the provision that says you cannot raise funds for terrorist organizations. It provides civil liberties protection in that it gives a meaningful judicial review to an organization that says we are not a terrorist organization even if the Secretary of State thinks we are. It enables that organization to have a hearing in court, an expedited hearing. It gives them the right to bring in their own evidence, their own witnesses to rebut what the Secretary of State says. It gives them proper due process. It restores the provision, unlike the original bill, it restores the provision that says that we will have an expedited proceeding, too, for the alien terrorists. But it gives that alleged alien terrorist more due process than the original bill. It says if the Government wants to use secret evidence against that person, it can do so only if a court agrees that it is giving the accused a summary of that evidence of sufficient detail to enable him to prepare a defense as good as if he had the evidence itself revealed to him. And if the Government thinks it cannot do that, it is too dangerous to reveal even a summary, then it cannot use the evidence; the same provisions as in the existing Classified Information Procedure Act, which we use with respect to spies and espionage and organized crime. The same balance is struck for civil liberties and for the right of the prosecution. With those two provisions restored and with proper civil liberties provisions, we have a decent bill. The choice, for Members, is now very clear: If you want an antiterrorist bill that actually targets the antiterrorist activity, you must support the Conyers-Berman-Nadler substitute. If you want to stop terrorist organizations from raising funds in the United States in order to carry out acts of cruel and cowardly terrorism throughout the world, you must support the Conyers-Berman-Nadler substitute. If you want to give the Federal Government support the ability to get alien terrorists out of the country expeditiously, you must support the Conyers-Berman-Nadler substitute. If you voted for the Barr amendment yesterday because you were concerned about the rights of individual law-abiding individual Americans, concerned about the unchecked power of big government, you must vote for the Conyers-Nadler-Berman substitute. To protect those rights and finish the job of cleaning up the bill. Our President, Mr. Chairman, is in the Middle East today pledging this Nation to take the lead in the worldwide fight against terrorism. He is pledging our resources, our experience, and most of all our commitment and our leadership. This House cannot, on the very same day, say, sorry, we cannot be bothered. It is a disgrace. It is a betrayal at the very moment that the civilized world is facing a truly monumental challenge. Terrorism knows no borders, and our response must similarly be as broad and tough as the situation demands. This bill, as amended yesterday, does not do the job. It is no longer an antiterrorism bill. It no longer even pretends to stop groups like Hamas or Hezbollah from raising funds in the United States. It no longer gives us the ability to get alien terrorists out of the country expeditiously. It no longer gives us the ability to get alien terrorists out of the country expeditiously. The organizations that have worked so hard to move forward the fight against terrorism agree and are supporting this substitute. Mr. Chairman, when a bomb goes off and kills children in Jerusalem, the return address should not be the United States. When a militant terrorist like Sheik Rakhman tries to blow up the World Trade Center and plot assassinations in our streets, our Government needs the tools to throw him out of the country. We need to respect civil liberties and of individual rights. While the Hyde-Barr bill went too far in the other direction, trampling on the rights of individuals, the Barr amendment goes too far in the other direction, cutting or eliminating the key antiterrorist provisions. For my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I say we may have disagreed on this or that provision but if you supported the Barr amendment because you were concerned about civil liberties, look at this amendment carefully, because every concern, every concern addressed by the Barr amendment is addressed in our substitute. If you voted against the Barr amendment, our substitute achieves the law enforcement goals in terms of antiterrorism that you wanted. We can achieve results without sacrificing the rights of law-abiding citizens. Let us not turn our backs on the opportunity to enact legislation that will fight terrorism at its core. The American people want an antiterrorism bill. The Barr amendment is not an antiterrorism bill. If we pass up this opportunity to stand up to the terrorists, we will have failed today, and that would be nothing less than shameful. I urge my colleagues to support the Conyers-Nadler-Berman substitute and not to give up the fight against terrorism.

Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, I do not believe----

Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, I certainly agree. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a moment?

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

Mr. NADLER. Before the gentleman gets into the analysis of the amendment, I just wanted to ask with what the gentleman said about the bill, as amended a moment ago, the gentleman said on the floor yesterday, and I quote: ``We have a real threat, we either do something about it or take a pass and pretend we are. With the Barr amendment, this is not an antiterrorism bill.'' Unquote. Does the gentleman think that is no longer correct?

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by commending the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] for his diligence and some of the provisions in his amendment, many of which I would point out are not copied, but included in identical form in the Conyers-Nadler-Berman amendment. We agree, I certainly agree, and I commend the gentleman for his provision, that would remove section 301, granting the FBI new authority on pen registers and trap and trace devices. We agree with and I commend the gentleman on his section disallowing the provision in the bill to allow wiretapping evidence obtained in good faith against defendants, as the gentleman points out, the Mack truck provision, without any court order. It is a terrible violation of civil liberties and a very dangerous expansion of Government power. Again, we do this in the substitute that will be considered later. There are a number of others. We agree with the gentleman and include in our bill the deletion of section 112 and modification of section 304. Unfortunately, I cannot support the amendment, though I agree with a lot of what it does. As I said, much of what it does is included in the substitute we will be offering later, because, to quote the Congressional Quarterly's Washington Alert of yesterday, it says that this amendment would dump most of the provisions aimed specifically at terrorist activities and would turn the package into a simple anticrime bill. There is nothing wrong with an anticrime bill, but we are supposed to be dealing here with an antiterrorism bill. Now, I understand the concern and why the gentleman wants to delete the provision allowing the Secretary of State to brand any organization as a terrorist organization and put it out of business. We agree with the gentleman's concern. But we cannot go so far as to delete it. What we have done in our substitute we will consider later is to subject that to a meaningful judicial review, to rein in that power. But without that, we have no prohibition that can be enforced against the funding from the United States of terrorist organizations. Likewise, the gentleman's deletion of the provision in I think section 601 permitting use of secret evidence against criminal aliens, whom we want to deport, I call that the Star Chamber court provision, to reinstate the court of Star Chamber that our ancestors rebelled against in this country. I agree that this provision is unconstitutional and is overbroad and is very destructive of civil liberties, but we in our amendment modify it. We provide basic due process protections. Again, without that we could not deport criminal aliens, not aliens, but alien terrorists in many situations. So I commend the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] and commend many of the provisions of his amendment, which, as I said, we duplicated in our amendment, but, unfortunately, I cannot support this amendment, because it removes the anti-terrorist provisions which should be modified but not removed.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to go into how desperate the situation is and how important it is that we pass a strong and tough antiterrorism bill. I think everybody here agrees on that. The question is what is an effective antiterrorism bill that will effectively fight terrorism without doing violence to the liberties of the American people. That is the question before us, and we do not have to make speeches about how important a bill is. We know that; we all know that. Let me simply suggest, and I will have to speak later in greater detail, that to have tough-sounding provisions in a bill that are unconstitutional and, therefore, unenforceable gives us the illusion of being tough, but not the reality of doing anything about the problem, and that is one of the problems of the bill that we solve in the Conyers-Nadler-Berman substitute. Second, we will talk later about some of the real civil liberties problems. We cannot have a procedure for deporting aliens who are allegedly terrorists where they have no opportunity to cross-examine their accusers, no opportunity to see the evidence against them, no opportunity even to know the specific charges, and that is possible under this bill, and that provision is rewritten to provide basic due process in the substitute that we will be talking about later.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on February 21st, this country lost a truly outstanding individual when composer and conductor Morton Gould died at the age of 82. Born in Richmond Hill, NY, Morton Gould's creativity was recognized just last year, when he won the Pulitzer Prize for Stringmusic. He composed for Broadway and for the ballet; his music was commissioned by symphony orchestras throughout the United States. His style integrated jazz, blues, gospel, country-and-western, and folk elements into compositions that were instantly recognizable as American, and which led to his receiving three commissions for the U.S. Bicentennial. As a conductor, Morton Gould led many of the major American orchestras as well as those of Canada, Mexico, Europe, Japan, and Australia. But as accomplished as he was as composer and conductor, Morton Gould's true genius was that he became what he called a ``musical citizen'': composer, conductor, arranger, educator, mentor. He loved and appreciated all kinds of music and did much to advance the protection of songwriters, including serving as president of the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers [ASCAP]. Morton Gould received a 1994 Kennedy Center Honor in recognition of his lifetime contribution to American Culture. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that this man, who contributed so much of lasting value to America, should be remembered and honored.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Solomon amendment. This amendment will keep dairy products affordable for the American consumer and at the same time provide a smooth transition for dairy farmers to a largely free market system, all at little or no cost to the American taxpayer. Under the bill before us today, the price for a gallon of milk would increase 40 to 50 cents; the price of cheese and other dairy products would increase as well. Under the Solomon amendment, the price of milk and other dairy products would be largely unchanged. In addition, the bill before us would increase the cost of the Child Nutrition and Food Stamp Programs by $1 billion over the next 6 years, according to the Agriculture Department's chief economist. The Women, Infant, and Children Feeding Program, or WIC, would have to reduce the average number of monthly recipients by 80,000 in 1997 and an additional 30,000 in later years to recoup the increased cost of dairy products. The Solomon amendment would keep dairy prices down, allowing the WIC, School Lunch, and Food Stamp Programs to function at at least minimal levels in an era of budgetary cuts and block grants. I urge my colleagues to support the women, infants, children, consumers and farmers of this country. Keep dairy prices affordable and vote ``yes'' on the Solomon amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize BMG Entertainment and commend them for their Black History Month Campaign, ``The Choice Is Yours.'' The campaign seeks to expand voter registration and education, and participation in the National Marrow Donor Program. BMG Distribution, a unit of BMG Entertainment, designed this campaign to highlight the importance of civic participation for African- Americans in the political and social arenas. ``The Choice Is Yours'' campaign will offer African-Americans and others the opportunity, at various retail music outlets across the country, to register to vote and to join the National Bone Marrow registry. Through a user-friendly format, the project will work to make young people educated, aware registered voters, and potential bone marrow donors. ``The Choice Is Yours'' campaign is an excellent example of what can be accomplished when the for-profit and non-profit sectors pool their energies and resources in order to help involve citizens and save lives. I am proud to recognize that this unique BMG Black History Month campaign will be initiated in my State of New York on February 1, 1996 and I commend BMG for all their efforts.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that this is before us. I wish we had a full continuing resolution so that the President and the Speaker and the majority leader and minority leader could have their negotiations and come up with a balanced budget in 7 years with CBO, which everybody has agreed to, while the Government continued doing its functions. But, no, we are only doing this through this continuing resolution for certain activities which are more important than others. Well, the Republican Party, Mr. Speaker, is showing us what it considers unimportant. The environment. We are not touching the EPA. Their employees are funded through January 26. So we are saying, despite all the hypocrisy, they do not care about the environment, about clean water, clean air. Superfund. It is not included here. It is not as important as trade adjustment benefits, for example. OSHA. Fifty thousand working people in this country die or are severely injured in industrial accidents every year. In 13 States OSHA programs are done by contract. Nothing here for them, for those 13 States, because we do not care, obviously. It is not that important. It is one of those things that is not important that the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] refers to, about whether working people have a safe working environment. On page 3 of the rule we have the authority to process single-family mortgage loans. Single family is written in because somebody thought, obviously, single-family homes are important but multifamily homes that we have in our cities, garden apartments, apartment buildings, that is not important because people living in cities, who might vote Democratic, maybe, on average, live in multifamily homes. So let us be hypocritical, we will fund our single-family homes and not their apartment buildings and garden apartments. That is not important. That is political. Mr. Speaker, what shows the total hypocrisy of this is that the other CR we passed a little while ago that says if the President proposes a budget satisfactory to the majority party, we will have a CR for 2 weeks.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we face today two separate controversies, two separate controversies that have been combined and confused, deliberately and improperly combined and confused. The first controversy is the impasse on the Federal budget. This impasse involves real and serious issues. The Republicans want to balance the budget and they want to make huge cuts in Medicare and in Medicaid in order to pay for a very large tax cut benefiting mostly the wealthiest Americans. Democrats, for the most part, want to balance the budget, but they want to do it while protecting Medicare and Medicaid, college loans, education, and the environment. These are serious differences and serious issues, and their outcome will determine the fundamental direction the country will take over the next few years, and these controversies deserve real and perhaps lengthy and extended debate. But this controversy should not lead to a shutdown of the Federal Government. This is the second separate issue, the unnecessary, deliberate, unconscionable shutdown of the Federal Government with all the suffering and pain that that implies and that brings forth for Government employees, for private contractors, for private citizens in all walks of life that have been talked about on this floor today. Mr. Speaker, we have had over the years many budget disagreements between the Congress and the President. Many times appropriations bills were not completed and signed into law on time. This year, because of the unnecessary delay because we wasted the first 100 days of the year on the Republicans' contract on America, and we did not start working on the appropriations bills until April instead of in January, the situation was worse than usual. But these disagreements, failure to pass the appropriations bills on time, do not normally lead to an extended shutdown of the Federal Government. We are told by the Republicans that the President is responsible for the shutdown because he vetoed appropriations bills. Presidents Reagan and Bush vetoed appropriations bills. That did not cause extended shutdowns of the Federal Government. The normal method of avoiding a shutdown of the Federal Government is to pass a continuing resolution saying that every department of Government will continue operating on the same rate of funding as it did last year, or perhaps at 90 or 85 percent or whatever is agreed upon indefinitely while the negotiations on next year's budget proceed. That is normally done. But the Republicans will not pass a continuing resolution, the normal method of keeping the Government in operation while the controversy over the new budget is determined. They will not pass it. The only reason for the Government shutdown is that the Republicans, led by Speaker Newt Gingrich, decided months ago that they would use the threat or the reality of a Government shutdown to attempt to blackmail the President into going along with budgetary solutions that he does not approve. This is wrong. Our Democratic system provides the proper means to work out policy and budget disagreements. The majority in Congress in both Houses passes a budget. The President signs it or he vetoes it, the various appropriations bills. Then there is an attempt to override. If they cannot override, they have further negotiations and eventually a compromise. If they cannot override the veto, if they cannot negotiate and come to a compromise, eventually they take it to the people. They say the President is unreasonable in his vetoes, let us get a new President; or the majority in Congress is unreasonable in its bills and let us get a new majority, and the American people make the ultimate decision. But while this is going on, the Government continues to operate on a continuing resolution. This year, the Republicans say, no, we cannot pass a continuing resolution because we do not trust the President. He does not keep his word. Obviously, I do not believe this to be true, but even if it were true, it is not material to this. The Republicans say they must keep the Federal Government shut down until the President keeps his word and produces a 7-year balanced budget according to CBO figures. And if he will not do that, they will not open the Government. They will make us all suffer. They will make the American people suffer. But the Federal Government is not a plaything or a possession of the President. The Federal Government does not belong to him. It belongs to the American people. Opening the Government is not a reward to the President for good conduct and closing it is not a punishment of the President for unacceptable conduct. Closing the Government, holding the people who need Government services, whether that be welfare checks or SSI or Medicare or passports, holding it closed is holding the American people hostage. It is not a legitimate negotiating tactic no matter what one thinks of the President's negotiating tactics. It is an abuse of power. Let us keep the two issues separate. Let us vote on a continuing resolution to reopen the Federal Government, and then let us work out the differences on a permanent budget.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this conference report, as amended by Senate Concurrent Resolution 37, follows the House bill by including a very important labor protection provision, known as the Whitfield amendment, which was adopted by the Members of this House by a 241-184 vote. That amendment provides some measure of protection to railway workers. Without it, the impact on those working Americans would be simply unconscionable. I am pleased to note that it is part of the bill going to the President. I am also gratified that two provisions I proposed, and got included in the House version of this bill, have been retained in this conference agreement. These two sections will help to protect the rights of small businesses, consumers, and working people following the elimination of the ICC. These two amendments were included in the chairman's en-bloc amendment in the House. I am pleased that the existing section 10707, the Feeder Line Development Program, is included in this bill. Under this provision, any rail carrier which owns a rail line but does not serve that line can be compelled to sell that unserved line to a carrier willing to provide service. This is vitally important to ensure that businesses, communities, and consumers are not needlessly isolated from the Nation's commerce by the stranglehold of a particular carrier over a particular service area. This will ensure that commerce will continue to move over rail rights of way and it will continue a very important power currently held by the ICC. Second, my language ensuring the continued existence of common carriage has been retained in the conference report. This language seeks to protect shippers and the general public from monopolies and to enable commerce to flow freely. This provision accomplishes that important goal by mandating that a carrier provide service to a shipper that makes a reasonable request for service on a nondiscriminatory basis. Under an earlier draft of this legislation, carriers would have been permitted to utilize all of their available capacity to contract carriage, leaving no remaining capacity available for small shippers willing and able to ship goods via common carriage. This iron-clad preference for contract carriage, to the exclusion of common carriage, would have sounded a death knell for common carriage and the small businesses and shippers dependent on the openness and fairness of the common carrier requirements. My amendment essentially prevents this dangerous exclusive preference for contract carriage and protects the integrity of our rail transportation system. Mr. Speaker, as I just said, I am pleased that some of my concerns with the future of rail service have been addressed. I thank Chairman Shuster and ranking member Oberstar of the Transportation Committee for their cooperation on these concerns.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this terrible bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican welfare reform conference report being considered today on the House floor. This bill is a clear assault on America's children, and on America's future. It would cut $48.4 billion from vital family survival programs, denying benefits to millions of children who are in desperate need. The welfare reform bill rips apart the safety net that so many children and families have relied on to help them stay afloat during desperate times. The Draconian cuts to essential services for low- income children, for families, and for elderly and disabled people is a clear example of the mean and uncaring spirit which has engulfed this Congress. Mr. Speaker, the magnitude of the cuts to these programs are unprecedented in U.S. history. This bill takes away the guaranty of emergency assistance for the very poor. It reduces drastically the funding for child protection programs needed to remove children from unsafe homes, and to place them in appropriate settings, such as foster care and adoption. Under this legislation, families on AFDC, as well as children receiving foster care and adoption assistance, would no longer be assured of receiving Medicaid as they currently are. Food assistance is reduced to ridiculous levels. The food stamp program is cut nearly $35 billion over 7 years--cutting benefits about 20 percent. Further, this bill reduces Federal supplemental security income benefits for large groups of disabled low-income children and also to older Americans. This bill also reduces funding for work programs which are key to making people personally responsible for themselves and their families. As a result of these reductions, the legislation would increase poverty dramatically among children. An Office of Management and Budget analysis found that this conference agreement would add 1.5 million children to the ranks of the poor. This study also found that the conference agreement would increase the depth of child poverty by one- third--making large numbers of children who already are poor poorer. This too is unprecedented in our Nation's history. Mr. Speaker, this bill is immoral and counter to the so-called family values which the Republicans constantly tout as necessary to a productive society. How this legislation will help to foster family values and personal responsibility baffles me. This legislation will put more families and children out on the streets; make more families and children go hungry; and will take away all of the basic survival needs and opportunities which those less fortunate need to be productive and contributing citizens. Don't let the Republicans fool you into believing that this bill is about reforming the welfare system, because if it were they would focus more on job and education opportunities for families with children while maintaining an adequate living standard for those in need, allowing them to be distinct contributors. This bill callously steals the little bit of hope that those in need have left to rise up against the odds. Clearly, it is a vehicle to keep the poor and disadvantaged down at the benefit of the wealthy status quo. In this bill, the Republicans destroy hope for personal advancement among this Nation's disadvantaged and poor--those who have not been so fortunate to have been born into economically stable families. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this very damaging bill.