Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker: 'Twas the holiday season, and all through the House, Any hopes for a budget, the Speaker did douse. But the PAC checks were tacked to the chimney with care, In hopes that a tax cut soon would be there. With Bill in discussions, but Newt's jaws aflap, Our nation's fine workers must just take a nap. When what to our wondering eyes should appear, But GOP leaders spreading more fear: Senior citizens, women and children disabled, It seems any help for you soon will be tabled. Please don't be mad, but you're taking the fall, So the wealthiest wealthy can soon have it all. We Democrats greeted this warning with ire, But Newt and his friends want cuts even higher. So to every American watching tonight, Be assured all this the Democrats will fight.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have shut down the Government because they claim that we have to have a balanced budget in 7 years based on figures provided by the Congressional Budget Office-- and only the Congressional Budget Office. Republicans have been leading many Americans to believe that if we adopt their balanced budget plan, interest rates will drop, there will be more jobs, and economic conditions for families will improve significantly. But according to that same Congressional Budget Office, after a few years under the Republican plan, unemployment will rise and economic growth will drop. You don't have to be an economist to know that that's called a recession. So the Republicans are telling us that they have to shut down the Government because President Clinton won't agree to their 7-year plan for economic hardship. We must continue to fight this plan.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was unavoidably detained and missed two rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 863 and ``no'' on rollcall 864.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Hamilton resolution as one who has spoken out for the last 4 years urging that we do the one thing that would enable the people of Bosnia to defend themselves against organized aggression, violence, rape, torture and genocide; lift the arms embargo. This was not done. Tragically, the war and the mass murders continued. By maintaining the arms embargo, which prevented the Bosnians from defending themselves against aggression and genocide, we incurred a heavy moral burden. We now have one final chance to meet that burden, to end the killing, to stop the genocide, and to restore peace. Let us meet the obligation we incurred, least it be said the United States did nothing to stop the genocide. Let us give peace a chance, let us support the President, let us support the Hamilton resolution.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget plan cuts to ribbons programs that are crucial to the development of our Nation's youth and the security of our Nation's seniors. Head Start, the summer youth employment program, and student loan programs are shredded. Medicare and Medicaid are bled by $450 billion, doubling Medicare premiums and shredding the level of medical care, and forcing millions of families to choose whether to mortgage or sell their homes to pay for their parents' stays in nursing homes. Yet while the sledgehammer falls on the heads of millions of middle- and low-income Americans and all our seniors and children, the Republicans want to eliminate all Federal income taxes on profitable multinational corporations, and they want to give people earning $350,000 a year a $10,000 tax break. I do not support balancing our Nation's budget in this manner, on the backs of our seniors, the middle class, our children, and the poor. I commend the President for insisting on the wellness of seniors, children, and the environment, and I urge the President to continue to stand firm against the Republican budget agenda.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is vitally important to the States of New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, and affects virtually no one else in the country one way or the other. This amendment seeks to bring competitiveness and viability to the rail freight industry in the northeast corridor, especially north and east of New York City. Amtrak owns the northeast corridor tracks. Conrail, by reason of a 1976 contract signed at a time when both Conrail and Amtrak were totally owned entities of the Federal Government, in other words, this contract was signed between one Assistant Secretary of Transportation and another one down the hall; by reason of this contract, Conrail has had an exclusive easement in perpetuity, forever, for freight usage of the northeast corridor tracks. The major problem that this causes is that Conrail, with minor exceptions, does not utilize this privilege north of New York City and prevents anyone else from using the northeast corridor for freight, leaving an entire region effectively barred from rail freight service. Taking advantage of its exclusive easement agreement, Conrail, with minor exceptions, does not allow any other rail freight carrier to use these tracks for freight. This monopoly privilege was purchased from the American taxpayer for the whopping price of $1. While the rest of the country enjoys competition in transportation, this produces the fact that 38 percent of all freight in the country is carried by rail. But in the region of New York City, Westchester and Putnam Counties, Long Island, Rhode Island and Connecticut, rail freight accounts for only 2.4 percent of traffic. In that geographic area, only 2.4 percent of freight travels by rail, compared to 40 percent in the country as a whole. This is caused to a large extent by the monopoly Conrail has and its refusal to service freight east of the Hudson River south of Boston. The lack of rail freight service to these areas compels us to bring our freight by truck to and from Conrail terminals in northern New Jersey. This classic monopoly conduct, in which they say ``bring your business to us, we will not go to your shippers and manufacturers and ports and companies,'' this classic monopoly conduct greatly increases shipping costs, congestion, wear and tear on our roads, and pollution in the entire region, and increases the cost of doing business. The majority in this Congress has been seeking the free market. Should we not allow private competition to give consumers a choice, to give them lower prices, and a better standard of living. This is our chance to bring competition in transportation services to the region east of the Hudson River. This amendment quite simply opens up the possibility of competition for rail freight service to the northeast. It accomplishes this by saying ``Amtrak may, not shall, may, consistent with safety and with priority for intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation, make agreements for rail freight transportation over rights-of-way and facilities, et cetera.'' By allowing competition into the Northeast corridor, the area's economy, as well as the bottom lines of Amtrak and other rail freight carriers, which could be Conrail, if they so choose, could benefit enormously. Mr. Chairman, this amendment mandates nothing. It simply opens up what is currently a monopoly area to open and fair competition. This unreasonable monopoly power is the result of another government give away to big business courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. In the spirit of the free market, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Mr. Chairman, there are several arguments against this amendment which are bogus. Let me summarize them very quickly. First, this is a hazard to safety in the Northeast corridor, to the safety of commuter or passenger transportation. Nonsense, for two reasons: First, 50 years ago, in the 1940's, the Pennsylvania Railroad carried three times as much passenger transportation on the corridor as at present, the same number roughly of commuter transportation, and huge freight traffic, with no problems. Today we have sunk over $1 billion, I believe, of Federal money into improving the corridor. It is in much better shape. We can handle the traffic. We do not have that traffic on the corridor now. So there are no safety problems. Second, Amtrak, which runs the passenger operations, by the terms of this amendment, Amtrak controls the track, we give them permission to allow freight transportation in the corridor. We do not tell them they must. They are in charge of the passenger transportation. They will not make any deals that would hazard the safety of the passengers that they run. The other major argument that is made is we should not break a contract. Conrail and Amtrak made a contract giving Conrail an exclusive monopoly on freight usage of the northeast corridor forever, and we should not break it. There are three answers to that. First, in the interests of the public in three great States, we should. The public in three States suffers from this monopoly. Second, this bill breaks other contracts, labor contracts. Why should this contract be sacred? Third, more important than those two arguments, this is not a real contract. Conrail is now a private company, like any other private company. Amtrak, according to this bill, in a couple years will be a private company. When this contract was signed, both of them were wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Federal Government. So the so-called contract was an agreement between one finger of the Federal hand and the other finger of the Federal hand, an agreement between the Federal Government and itself. Why should it now bind two private companies? In summation, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is important to the economy of the Northeast, of the State of Connecticut, New York and Rhode Island, and hurts nobody, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman. I would simply like to add a comment in response to the comment of the distinguished chairman from Pennsylvania where he read from Mr. Claytor's--Amtrak's then President Claytor--testimony at a hearing that we must eliminate the intermixture on the same right-of-way of heavy freight trains and high speed passenger and computer operations. As a general rule, Mr. Chairman, that is true, but there are things such as road-railer freight operations. I will not go into what that is, but it is not heavy freight but it is freight. It is these truck trailers with retractable rail wheels, which we could use on the corridor, which can go 75 or 80 miles an hour and which have a low center of gravity and which present no safety concerns and no problems mixing with passenger transportation at all. In addition to which they do not have to be on the same track. Even slow freight trains, as long as they are on a different track, we have no problem, even if it is the same right-of-way. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, the key to this amendment is that Amtrak, which owns the track, would have the ability to make those decisions, subject to whatever safety regulations the Federal Rail Administration, et cetera, sets up. We are not mandating them. We are saying Amtrak may do this. We are simply asking that three States, New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, be given the opportunity to talk to Amtrak, to talk to freight railroads, and maybe we will get some rail freight service for that entire region of 15 or so million people that has no rail freight service and needs it for economic benefits. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment so that we can have the freedom to talk to Amtrak.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I am also speaking on behalf of the ranking member of the committee and the subcommittee in opposing this amendment. Let me just say that the gentlewoman from New York expressed most of what I was going to say so I am not going to repeat it. There is no reason to take this money away from this project. It is an important, worthy project. That it is in my district does not detract from that. It is a very important, worthy project for this entire country. We spend money on airports, on highways, all over the country. This is the premier jewel of the rail system in this country. It ought to be, and we ought to do what we have to do for Penn Station. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the residents of the West Side of Manhattan, the local elected officials from New York City, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Taxpayers Union, the Porkbusters Coalition, and now the House and Senate, for the second time, have made it clear; they do not want the Federal Government to pay $300 million to move a newly refurbished highway in my district so that the tenants of Donald Trump's proposed luxury high-rise Riverside South development will have an unobstructed view of the Hudson River. As most of the Members of this body know by now I have been working for several years to kill the Trump-backed, $300 million Miller Highway relocation project in my own congressional district. I am pleased to say that because of the language in this NHS conference report, any plans to use taxpayer funds for this ill-conceived project are now defunct. The language in this report takes away all remaining ISTEA funding for this porkbarrel boondoggle. I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar for their work in conference to ensure this project was not allowed to proceed. This is a victory for good government, but most of all, it is a victory for the American taxpayer who would have been asked to pay the bill. general leave

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we all believe in achieving a balanced budget. But, oh, the sins that we can hide under that framework. Mr. Speaker, this bill imposes a $32 billion tax increase on low- income working Americans earning $18,000 to $20,000 a year, while giving a $14,000 tax break to someone earning $350,000. The bill eliminates home heating assistance for low-income people while providing funds for nuclear weapons testing. It eliminates the assurance that will help people pay for the cost of nursing homes for grandma and college loans for their students, but the rich will get a lot richer. That is what this republican budget is all about.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, 1984 has come and gone, but Big Brother is alive and well. It may seem like tilting at windmills to focus on this bill's restrictions on the content of art that the National Endowment for the Arts may fund, but we must not lose sight of the larger issue. Freedom of expression is the bedrock of our national identity. This bill prohibits the NEA from funding art ``* * * which depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities or organs.'' Does the definition of ``sexual'' include kissing or holding hands? Does the prohibition against the depiction of sexual organs bar the works by Michelangelo? This language is probably unconstitutional. It is clearly blatant censorship. The new majority has declared deregulation and decentralization to be at the top of its agenda. I guess those lofty goals had a run-in with the Republican censors. Along with censorship, the bill reduces NEA funding by 40 percent. When this body established the NEA, it said, ``* * * it is necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to help create and sustain not only a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry * * *.'' Let us not forget that our constituents sent us here to protect their rights, not to clip away at their freedoms.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky. This amendment is not perfect, in my opinion, but it does maintain some basic rights for railroad workers. Without this amendment, the bill would allow for collective-bargaining agreements to be abrogated at the whim of the newly created Federal panel that will replace the ICC functions, without the current balancing provision that provides labor protections for workers involved in merger situations. The amendment will maintain some of these labor protections. The amendment will leave railroad workers with some sense of security by ensuring workers terminated as a result of mergers of a year of severance pay. This is a reasonable provision, although obviously much less of a protection than the requirement in current law of 6 years severance pay. Many of the people who work on these railroads have done so for decades and have sons and daughters who have followed in their footsteps. These are working people just trying to stay above water. They are the kinds of people who are the backbone of our economy and the kinds of people that have made the United States the great country it is today. Without this amendment, we are telling these men and women that we do not care if their jobs are swept away by a merger, so be it. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we owe this small piece of security to the American worker, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am not a great fan of deregulation. I do not believe we should abolish the ICC. I am not a great fan of this bill. But I rise today to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman, and his staff for working with me in addressing some particular major concerns I had with a number of provisions of the bill. The bill as originally drafted would have terminated the feeder line development program. Many railroads are the only carriers of goods to and from certain areas of the country. Because of this monopoly, there must be an ability to protect shippers and residents of such areas from decisions by a railroad, perhaps after a merger, by a railroad that enjoys the local monopoly status to eliminate service to an area. This program has provided for many years that, if a railroad does not provide service on a line it owns, it can be compelled to sell that portion of the line to a railroad that will provide service in that area. This provision has been utilized successfully in many cases, for example, by railroads such as the Northern & Eastern and the Tennessee Central Railroad. These railroads are now profitable, viable, and support their communities' economy, none of which would have been possible without the provisions of current law that are commonly known as the feeder line development program. It is for these reasons I am pleased that the chairman's en bloc amendments to this bill will preserve these provisions of the law and this program. The second concern I had was that the common carrier provisions of the law were diluted in the original bill to the point that it would have undermined one of the original purposes of the ICC. That is to protect shippers and the general public from monopolies and to enable commerce to flow freely. Under the existing law a railroad is mandated to provide service to anyone who makes a reasonable request for that service. Many of these requests are from small communities which do not have other viable ways to ship their goods or from small shippers of whom the same is true. Requests can also come from large shippers that rely on one railroad to carry their goods. In both cases, if a railroad is allowed to deny or minimize services, they are given the power to decide which communities and which businesses will prosper and which will die. In a perfect world, we might let carriers decide who they would service. The reality is that we only have so many rail lines in this country and that it is imperative that we preserve the common carrier provision so that anyone can get service. That is why it was imperative that this provision be amended to more closely resemble the current law. As I said earlier, I want to thank Chairman Shuster for working with [[Page H 12259]] me to see that the feeder line development program is included, which it is, and the common carrier provision is still a viable part of the new regulatory body of law that will oversee interstate commerce. I think that, with the chairman's en bloc amendment, it will. At the same time, I need to express my dismay with the process and the haste with which this bill was brought before us. As a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, we received a 280- page bill on Thursday night and were asked to review, evaluate, and vote on amendments in 4 days, 4 days to determine how we were going to restructure a body of law that had taken 100 years to develop. It is my understanding that the reason we had to do a bill in such haste is that the Committee on Appropriations had not provided funding for the ICC, and we had to amend the law accordingly and quickly. I hope that in the future we will take more deliberate speed in amending such a major body of law. But again, I wanted to thank the chairman and his staff for working out what I believe to be a satisfactory resolution of the two problems, the common carrier doctrine and of the feeder line development program.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Jewish War Veterans of the United States on the occasion of their 100th anniversary. As the oldest continually active national association for veterans, the Jewish War Veterans has long served this Nation in times of war and in times of peace. The organization has worked actively to combat racism and bigotry throughout our Nation and the world, to uphold American ideals and free institutions, and to assist veterans of all races and creeds. From the days of Asher Levy's first establishing his rights of citizenship by defending the walls of New Amsterdam--present-day Manhattan--to the conflict in the Persian Gulf, American Jews have fought and died in American Armed Forces. Official records show that American Jews have consistently served in the Armed Forces in greater numbers than their percentage in the population. The Jewish War Veterans of the United States have sought to uphold this proud tradition of service to the Nation throughout their century of existence, fighting for veterans benefits, civil, and human rights. Throughout the Nation, Jewish War Veterans posts offer veterans from all walks of life, counseling and assistance in obtaining their veterans' benefits. When Martin Luther King, Jr., led his march on Washington in 1963, it was the Jewish War Veterans who were the only veterans' organization to demonstrate for equal rights with him. Whenever Neo-Nazi or Ku Klux Klan groups have surfaced, the Jewish War Veterans have been there to protest in body and voice, through picketing, and consultation with, and assistance to law enforcement officials. The Jewish War Veterans are also active in a wide variety of civic improvement projects, including volunteering at Veterans' Association Hospitals and numerous homeless shelters, providing college scholarships and urging our Nation's leaders to continue a strong commitment to those who have served our nation so valiantly. The Jewish War Veterans of the United States represents an outstanding tradition of patriotism and service to America. It is my honor to say thank you and to congratulate them on their 100th anniversary.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this bill does not implicate, contrary to the previous speaker, any funds. This bill would allow, or rather this amendment would prohibit the District of Columbia law that allows a domestic partner to visit his partner in a hospital, that allows a public employee in the District of Columbia to self-finance family health insurance for himself or herself and his or her domestic partner, self-finance. This has nothing to do with financing. This has nothing to do with the fiscal crisis of the District of Columbia. This simply has to do with Congress deciding for motives of hatred of gay people and lesbians to reach in and tell local government, ``You may not have an enlightened policy.'' The gentleman, the previous speaker, said this is beneficial to people who have no desire to marry. There is no jurisdiction in the country which allows a gay person or lesbian person to marry. All the District of Columbia has decided is certain benefits, to visit the sick, to take annual leave, to take leave for bereavement, to bury their domestic partner, that they are entitled to that. But we are going to say no, we will not let you decide that. The hypocrisy of saying that we support local rights, we support home rule, when it has nothing to do with fiscal policy, and then passing this amendment is paramount, is supreme. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment on grounds of home rule and grounds of simple humanity.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my outrage that, in the Republican rush to bestow a $245 billion tax cut for America's wealthiest citizens, we are being asked to leave the futures of our children behind. This is nothing less than immoral. While the wealthiest Americans will receive a $20,000 windfall under the Republican budget, our Nation's abused and neglected children will suffer under a 19 percent cut in funding for programs offering child protection. By 2002, almost 200,000 children will be denied access to Head Start. Medicaid coverage for as many as 4.4 million children will be eliminated by 2002. And the Republican budget denies 1 million women infant mortality assistance, affecting the births of 74,000 infants each year, giving new meaning to the phrase, ``women and children first.'' Mr. Speaker, let us not throw our Nation's children overboard. Let us reject these immoral cuts, and oppose the Republican budget reconciliation bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the chairman, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], and all the members of the conference committee for holding fast in the face of strong opposition from the other body on section 501 of the House version of the transportation appropriations conference report. This section, an amendment originally offered by myself and by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce], and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge], provides that no funds appropriated in this bill may be used to tear down and move a few hundred feet at a cost of $300 million a highway we just finished rebuilding in place for $90 million. The only purpose of this proposed boondoggle was to support a proposed luxury housing project being developed and to make the views of this housing project being developed in my district by Donald Trump and his business associates. This measure was supported unanimously by sides of the aisle and shows how this body can come together on issues to benefit the American tax payer. Again, I want to thank the leaders of the conference committee for their support in this matter.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the fifth anniversary of the AIDS Service Center of Lower Manhattan, which will be commemorated October 30, 1995. Founded in October 1990 as the Lower Manhattan AIDS Task Force, the AIDS Service Center has grown into a multiservice community organization which is dedicated to serving individuals, families, and communities that are affected by HIV/AIDS. ASC has expanded its services to provide case management, advocacy and support services, peer education, community outreach, and training opportunities for people living with AIDS in Manhattan. The AIDS Service Center has served over 4,000 people through street outreach and education activities, and engaged over 300 people living with HIV/AIDS in case management services. I am honored to pay tribute to this fine organization, which is located in my district, and to mark its fifth anniversary. As the number of people with AIDS increases every day, it is gratifying that ASC is here to meet the needs of all who are affected by AIDS.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, before a Democratic Congress against almost total Republican opposition enacted Medicare into law in 1965, one out of every two senior citizens has no health care coverage at all. Today, with Medicare, 99 percent of senior citizens have health security. The drastic cuts the Republicans propose in Medicare, $270 billion, would savage the Medicare Program. The Republican Medicare bill will make older Americans pay more and get less, not to prevent Medicare from going bankrupt as they falsely claim, but to finance a huge tax cut, $245 billion, for the very wealthiest Americans. The Republican plan will, among other things, according to the Washington Times, so increase the Government's burden of proof in prosecuting Medicare fraud that the Government would lose about one- quarter of what it recovers from the crooks and the cheats today. The Republican plan will increase out-of-pocket costs for all seniors. It will double premiums and increase deductibles. It will drastically reduce reimbursement rates to doctors and other health care provides so much so as to drive many doctors out of the Medicare system and endanger the quality of care provided to seniors. Altogether, the Republican bill would cost the average beneficiary at least $2,825 in premium and co-payment increases over 7 years, and the average couple at least $5,650. Americans must know the truth, that the Republican Medicare cuts will go straight into the Republican's tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. The Medicare trustees tell us Medicare needs $90 billion, not $270 billion, to remain solvent. The Republicans tell us we have ample funds to balance the budget in 7 years, and still pay for a $245 billion tax cut. If the Republicans are not lying to the American people, if their purpose is, as they say, to save Medicare, why not simply reduce the size of their tax cut for the wealthy by $90 billion and place the revenues saved in the Medicare Trust Fund? There is no need to force seniors to leave the doctors they know and to join unfamiliar managed care plans. There is no need to double part B premiums. There is no need to increase copayments and deductibles by thousands of dollars. Mr. Speaker, to our Republican colleagues we say, simply take $950 billion from your tax cut for the wealthy and put it into the Medicare Trust Fund. You will still have a $155 billion tax cut for your wealthy friends and contributors, or is that not enough? Or is the full $245 billion gift to the very rich so important that you must destroy Medicare in order to save it? The New York Times recently published an article detailing some individual cases, where even with the help of Medicare, medical costs are already devastating the financial stability of many seniors. Take, for example, Susie Meade, a 78-year-old woman from Florida. The Times reports, ``Out of the $6,600 she gets in Social Security a year, she pays $1,116 for supplemental insurance, $553 for Medicare, and $1,000 for prescriptions. She is left with $328 a month to pay her rent and to live on.'' How can the thousands of seniors like Mrs. Meade be free to finance a tax break for the very wealthiest Americans? Here are just some of the many thousands of letters I have received from my constituents opposing these cuts, and there are very many stories of people who cannot possibly imagine them. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a sneak attack on Medicare. The Republicans did not campaign last year on a platform of savaging Medicare. They did not tell the voters they would double Medicare premiums and increase copayments and cut Medicare by $270 billion. Then they kept their bill secret until last week, in the hope that the American people will not find all of the jokers hidden in the fine print until it is too late, until the bill is passed, the deed is done, the money for the $20,000 tax cut for people making $300,000 a year is provided. Mr. Speaker, the American people know how to react and deal with sneak attacks. We have endured sneak attacks before. Admiral Yamamoto is reported to have said on December 7, 1941, after he received the congratulations of his subordinates for the successful sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, [[Page H 10295]] ``Gentlemen, I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.'' If this sneak attack on Medicare passes tomorrow, the American people will again be filled with a terrible resolve and they will know how to repay the attackers.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the basic lack of reality of what the Republicans are saying was addressed by my colleague a moment ago. The trustees tell us that $90 billion is what is necessary to fix the Medicare trust fund for long-term solvency. The Republicans take $270 billion, and they claim this is offered to save Medicare. If they were really honest about this, they would say, OK, we will reduce our tax cut from $245 to $155 billion and take that $90 billion and give it to the Medicare trust fund. But they are not honest about it. When the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] offered that amendment in the Committee on Ways and Means, he was ruled out of order. We have already been told it will be ruled out of order if we were to offer it on the House floor tomorrow, because the Republicans are afraid to confront the reality and to let us show the American people what they really are talking about. They want the entire money for a tax cut for the rich and they do not dare say let us cut the tax cut and give $90 billion to Medicare.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a sponsor of H.R. 359.