Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, those of us in politics have lately gotten a bad rap--people think that those of us who represent our neighbors here in Washington are craven and will say anything, stoop to any reprehensible stunt, to attract contributions and votes. Of course, that's not true. Most Members of Congress are honorable people who are dedicated to public service. It gets a bit hard to defend this institution when you have to pick up your morning paper and see reprehensible and hateful trash like the latest wanted poster sent out by Republican fundraisers. Of the many Members of this body who have taken a principled stand against the Contract on America, the whiz kids decided they would push the emotional hot buttons of potential contributors if they depicted the opposition as predominantly Jewish, African-American, Latino, and female. To which direct mail list was this to be sent? The KKK? Isn't our country divided enough without some craven politician stirring the pot in search of contributions? One more thing, I was left off this poster and I wish to object. I have worked as hard as anyone to stop the contract's multiple assaults on individual liberty, the environment, consumers, and the Constitution. Yet this wanted poster suggests that I haven't been on the job, or worse yet, have colluded with the contract. Mr. Speaker, where do I go to get my good name back?

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall No. 536 on the Bereuter amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which would remove from this bill dangerous language that once again strikes out at women. The language we are seeking to remove today says that women who work for the Federal Government--women who have made a commitment to public service--should not have the same rights offered to women working elsewhere. Mr. Chairman, women in this Nation have a constitutionally protected right to choose whether to have an abortion. This is the law of the land. But some Members of this House, realizing that the vast majority of the American people support a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose, are trying to do away with this fundamental right bit by bit, woman by woman. We must not allow this to happen. Because abortion is a legal medical procedure, most major health plans provide coverage for women who choose to have an abortion. Private insurance companies recognize that their female customers are perfectly capable of making this deeply personal choice without interference. Do we think that our moral judgment is superior to that of the thousands of women serving our communities and our Nation? What do we know that major insurance companies, U.S. corporations, and the majority of our constituents do not know? It is time to get off the high horse, to quit playing political games with the rights of women and to respect the moral judgment of the women we represent. I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which would prohibit us from tearing down this bridge which is half in my district. This bridge was constructed with the specific intent of being taken down. It is an Army-designed, temporary Bailey bridge. The only reason it exists is to allow construction vehicles to travel to and from Ellis Island for an ongoing construction project. It is normally used by an advancing military. It is designed to be laid quickly and efficiently and is meant to be used only as a temporary crossing. Mr. Chairman, an amendment to make it permanent, to prevent us from tearing it down, is an amendment to circumvent the will of this House which voted not to have a permanent bridge here. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The bridge my colleague is asking to be turned into a pedestrian foot bridge is an Army-designed Bailey Bridge. This bridge was constructed with the specific intent of being taken down. The only reason it exists is to allow construction vehicles to travel to and from Ellis Island for an ongoing restoration project. This type of bridge is normally used by an advancing military and is designed to be laid quickly and efficiently and is meant to be used only as a temporary crossing. A Bailey Bridge is designed for vehicles and troops wearing combat boots. It is made of perforated metal, an extremely unsafe surface for normal pedestrian use. In fact, the bridge is far from meeting basic safety standards for pedestrian use. The railings and curbs are inadequate. there is no way to separate vehicle from pedestrian traffic further endangering those that would use the bridge. To make this bridge a stable and long lasting structure would also require additional pilings and reinforcement of its frame. The estimated cost to add the railings, curbs, pilings and other safety features necessary for pedestrian traffic is $5 million. This amendment does not provide the funds for the construction of these safety standards, yet it will not allow the bridge to be taken down. So, when the restoration project is over it will sit, useless, nothing more than a potential navigational hazard to industrial and recreational ships alike. As such, in addition to being an unsafe crossing for families visiting Ellis Island, if the bridge is left in place beyond its useful life it could threaten vessels calling at port facilities in Port Newark--Elizabeth, the Military Ocean Terminal in Bayonne, the Howland Hook marine terminal, South Brooklyn Marine Terminal, Red Hook Container Terminal as well as other marine traffic in the Nations greatest port. This bridge is not designed for heavy pedestrian use and is not designed to stand the test of time. It is a temporary bridge that will be nothing more then a disaster waiting to happen. I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, for a relatively small Federal investment, millions of dollars are generated each year in our communities as a result of NEA funding. In 1992, the $166 million invested by the National Endowment for the Arts is estimated to have generated local economic activity throughout the country totalling $1.68 billion. In fact, the Federal Government received an average of $3.4 billion in income tax revenue from nonprofit arts organizations, according to a recent study. To cut this funding would be fiscally imprudent. But there is much more than money at stake here. What is at stake is the soul of America--the richness, the texture, the intangible verve which courses through our daily existence in ways that we do not always recognize in the short run. To argue that we must sell our soul to pay our bills is downright irresponsible. Some might argue that the work spurred by NEA funding is not a worthwhile investment of our federal tax dollars. Yes, it is difficult to quantify the noneconomic benefits we gain from our Federal commitment to the arts. But what of our grandfather's pocketwatch that we keep always, for which we invest in repairs, which has no real value in an economic sense? We cannot describe why it is valuable to us, but it is part of who we are--it feeds our soul in an intangible way. Similarly, it is difficult to quantify the smile on a child's face when she sees her first play at a children's theater, or the self- exploration we may experience when we look at a painting. These are things on which we cannot put a price, but are made possible through our Federal commitment to the arts and humanities. Some may argue that they support the arts--but taxpayers should not be forced to finance the NEA. But without NEA support, many of the smaller, community based arts organizations would perish. Private funds are stimulated by the NEA imprimatur and matching requirements. When this body established the NEA, we said, ``The Congress hereby finds and declares * * * that 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 but also the material conditions facilitating the release of this creative talent.'' This remains an important goal. Let us [[Page H 7028]] not act rashly and put in jeopardy the future of America's soul with only 10 minutes of debate.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this restrictive rule which does not allow us to consider fully the magnitude of the changing proposes in this bill. To limit debate on whether to eliminate all support of the arts, the soul of America, to 10 minutes, is outrageous. Those supporting eliminating funding for the National Endowment for the Arts argue that it is too costly. If given more than a minute, I could argue, with verity, that cutting the National Endowment for the Arts would in actuality do damage to our national economy.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for the moment about the scope of debate on the floor of the House and to defend it against the attitude of the acting Speaker. The resolution before the House is the election of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] to the Committee on Ways and Means. When someone is up for election, he is a candidate. The candidate's views are relevant, the candidate's intentions are relevant. The fact that the intentions of those who are putting him there may be to make it easier to enact great cuts in Medicare, they are relevant. The fact that the intentions of those who are putting him there may be to put someone there who is opposed to taxes, that is relevant. The fact that they may be doing that because they enticed him and because they are selling committee seats for switches in party, if someone wants to say that, that would be relevant. I am not saying those things, though I think they are true. The fact that this leadership is doing these things is all relevant.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this evening, Shabbos Korach begins, and Jews around the world will observe the mitzvah of lighting Shabbos candles. But this shabbos also marks the first yahrzeit of the Lubavicher Rebbe. The Rebbe was the spiritual leader of the Lubavicher Chasidim, but he was also revered and respected as a great tazaddik by Jews and non-Jews around the world. Indeed, his work still lights the learning and daily mitzvot of Jews everywhere. Through the Chabad movement, schools, high technology communications, Mitzvah Mobiles, publications, lectures, and most of all a profound commitment to the importance of Jewish thought, belief and ethics, the Rebbe made an incalculable contribution to the spiritual lives of all people. The Rebbe lived through pogroms, two world wars, the rise and fall of communism, the Holocaust and tremendous personal challenges. But his idealism, his learning, and his faith shone through it all and inspired millions. This week the Rebbe was honored by the presentation of a Congressional Gold Medal, authorized by legislation I was privileged to cosponsor. Members of Congress and religious leaders, including the Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, Shlita, paid tribute to the Rebbe. Mr. Speaker, the Rebbe's yahrzeit offers us an opportunity to reflect on and remember the life, work and contributions of the Rebbe. The Rebbe remains a figure of historic importance. I commend the example of his life to all my colleagues.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my outrage with the Republican proposal to balance the budget on the backs of our Nation's senior citizens. The Republican budget proposal would force our seniors to pay more than $1,000 out of pocket each year while giving the very wealthiest 1 percent of Americans a windfall of $20,000 a year in tax cuts. It is outrageous that, at a time when our Nation's seniors are struggling more than ever to make ends meet, the Republicans have chosen to make it harder than ever for them to access quality health care. While it is important to work toward a balanced budget, we cannot force seniors to pick up the tab, while to add insult to injury, giving a tax break to the very wealthiest Americans. The Republicans claim that they must cut Medicare, because they project that the entire system will be out of money in 7 years. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, ``But even if you accept the Republican figures, and I don't, their Medicare cuts are 2\1/2\ times greater than called for to make their figures balance. The real purpose of this drastic cut in Medicare is to pay for a windfall for the very wealthy, not to save the future of Medicare for seniors.'' Again I say, Mr. Speaker, ``For shame.''

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Miliken Legal Club of the Boys Club of New York. The Miliken Legal Club was founded in 1992 by Dr. Shirley Smith. This program provides an active legal education for high school age students. During the school year, young men and women are instructed in legal procedure by lawyers such as Larry Carbone of the New York City Con. Ed. Legal Department and by Ellen Van Dyke of the Manhattan district attorney's office. When summer arrives, several students are chosen to act as interns at the Manhattan district attorney's office. The program culminates each year with a mock trial that is presided over by Bronx Supreme Court Justice Richard Lee Price. This program helps make the legal system accessible to many young people in my district. In doing so, the Miliken Legal Club teaches these students that they have an investment in the law, in the justice system and in this Nation. I am proud to have this fine organization located in my district.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Rabbi Yisocher Dov Rokeach, known as the Belzer Rebbe, who will be visiting next week from Jerusalem. The Belzer Rebbe is the leader of a prominent Chassidic community whose core is based in my district in Boro Park and in Israel where Rabbi Rokeach resides. He stands out as an individual who has maintained the vibrancy and cohesion of a community, with followers who number in the thousands and reside around the world. The Belzer Chassidic community was founded in Galicia, toward the end of the 18th century. It was well known for the wisdom of its literature and the religious dedication of its leaders. During the Second World War, Nazi terror devastated the Belzer European community and the surviving Belzer Chassidim left Europe to try to revitalize their movement in Israel. Under the direction of the fourth Belzer Rebbe, they began a program of community building, developing schools for child and adult education, and creating supportive economic institutions for the multitudes who had been impoverished by an oppressive war. In 1966, Rabbi Rokeach took over these efforts. He has since realized the post-war vision of Belzer revitalization and has infused new life into the Belzer community. The community presently sponsors numerous self-help organizations including one of the world's largest patients advocate organizations of its kind, a center for free medical counseling, and a clinic providing affordable medical treatment. In addition, the Belzer community prides itself upon the recent growth of its numerous yeshivot--academies for talmudic scholarship. Hillel the Elder stated, ``If I am not for myself then who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, then what am I?'' The Belzer Chassidim reflect this message. Under the leadership of the Belzer Rebbe, this community has truly succeeded in forging the ethnic of self-help together with an awareness of social responsibility. The modern-day Belzer Rebbe has created a vibrant, exciting community that would make each of his predecessors proud.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am going to be brief on this because I think most of it has already been said, but again listen to what the proponents of this arrangement and of this appropriation are saying. They are saying Fort Irwin, the National Training Center, is very important. Granted. They are saying that the Army at one point asked for funds to upgrade Barstow-Daggett. Granted, when they could not use Edwards Air Force Base. They are saying that Edwards Air Force Base cannot be used, it is not good enough. It is being used now. In fact there is mission incompatibility, but there is decreased Air Force use of Edwards because of less Air Force use. That we know for the last few years, and the fact of the matter is again, the Army is doing a study of what the best available options are, what is the best way of rotating troops in and out of Irwin, the most cost-effective way and the best way for mission readiness at [[Page H 6122]] Fort Irwin. That study is coming out in August. But we do not want to wait for that study. We want to jump the gun. That is silly because that risks wasting a lot of taxpayers' money. None of the money appropriated here in this bill on this subject can be spent at Barstow-Daggett before 1997, which is to say before the next appropriation bill will have been passed in any event, so why not remove this money, wait for the August study, and if they still have the mind that this is the way to go, fine. Next year they can appropriate it, and they can build it just as fast, but if that study shows, as apparently the Army thinks it may, because the Army is not requesting this money. With all of this rhetoric we have heard on this floor about how important this money is, that our combat capability will be degraded without it and so forth, the Army has not asked for this money, and in this climate, when we are taking money away from food stamps, from school lunches, from Medicare, from Medicaid, from college loans, from just name it, we are proposing to give the Army $32 million it does not say it needs, and it does not request, and it does not want because we cannot wait 2 months for a study that may show us a cheaper, better way to do it sounds to me like pork, not military readiness.

Mr. NADLER. I have one simple question: Given all the things I said, why has the Army not requested this?

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the remarks of the gentleman from California very carefully, and I agreed with everything that was said about the national training center at Fort Irwin. It is the finest facility, an essential facility, et cetera. We are not talking in this amendment about Fort Irwin or the National Training facility. We are talking about Barstow-Daggett, whether we should spend $32 million, at Barstow-Daggett to make a modern airfield there and whether we should reopen George Air Force Base as a temporary facility. The fact of the matter is the NTC is a wonderful training facility and an essential one, and we rotate 60,000 troops in there every so often and out of there every so often. The question is: Is it worth the investment to rotate them into Barstow-Daggett instead of through Edwards Air Force Base? I agree, if it were a 4\1/2\ hour journey from Las Vegas, I probably would not offer this amendment. When this was started, when this project was initiated, when the studies were undertaken initially, Edwards Air Force Base was not available as an option, because it was busy, busy with Air Force business. Circumstances have changed. Now it is available. The Army has not requested this money. The study that the gentleman holds up, the Army study that supposedly justifies this, is unavailable. It has never been released publicly. We could not get a hold of it. I do not know what it says. We do know the Army is coming out with its study as to the best way to rotate troops into and out of Fort Irwin in 2 months. So what is the rush? Two months from now the Army will release its study as to the best way, and maybe the information that I have, and we called up the AAA and we said, ``How do you get from Redlands, where this Fort Irwin is, to Edwards Air Force Base, and vice versa?'' ``Oh, no problem. Ninety minutes on the freeway.'' They did not tell us anything about a third of the way on 2-lane roads. We asked them specifically. They said it is all freeway driving, 90 minutes, you are there. For 16 years, I commuted 140 miles up to Albany from New York, where the State legislature meets, freeway driving, no problems. Most people do that. It will not degrade on military capability on which the gentleman was so earnest, if the troops rotating in and out of Irwin Air Force Base every few months take an hour and a half on a bus and on a freeway from Edwards Air Force Base to Fort Irwin, and the other way around, a few months later, however long a period of time they stay at Fort Irwin. We are not talking about a daily commute. We are talking about rotating in for exercises and a few weeks later rotating out and a 90-minute drive each way. Maybe what I just said is wrong. Maybe the Army study that is due out in August will show that is wrong for some reason that we do not know here on this floor, at least we on this side do not know, in which case, fine, maybe we should develop the Barstow-Daggett base, and that information in that report will show us that we should. But we have plenty of time. They cannot start construction until 1997, in any event. To appropriate $10 million now is totally unnecessary, even if it is necessary to develop Barstow-Daggett. The $10 million appropriated last year is unspent. Now we will have $20 million unspent or wasted. Why cannot we wait 2 months until that study comes out to show what the best course of action is? Remember, this money, for all the eloquence of the people saying how important the NTC is, this money is not requested or wanted by the Army. It should be dispositive and, therefore, this amendment should pass in the interests of saving the taxpayers' money.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am appalled that in this time of ever increasing concern over our burgeoning national debt, the committee has chosen to include in this bill an appropriation of $10 million as a second down payment on a $32 million project for a project which is at best of dubious necessity. At worst, it is a $32 million total boondoggle with no legitimate purpose. My amendment would cut this wasteful and unnecessary spending and ultimately save the taxpayers $32 million. Mr. Chairman, let me tell you the twisted tale of this waste of money that is proposed to be taken from the pockets of working Americans. Once upon a time there was a facility to train Army units at Fort Irwin, CA. But alas this facility had no airport. Personnel had to be trucked 170 miles from the nearest available airfield in Nevada. We can all agree that this was a situation that needed to be remedied. This House several years ago initiated a study to find a more efficient way to transport trainees. At one point, the Army designated Barstow-Daggett Airfield, currently a Marine Corps logistics facility, as the best available option to upgrade that facility. The House initiated action to get funds for a $32 million project to upgrade Barstow-Daggett. But in the meantime, Edwards Air Force Base, 90 miles away from Fort Irwin, became available for this purpose as in downsizing the workload there was reduced and we are informed that the Air Force is amenable to the Army's use of Edwards for this purpose. George Air Force Base, another local facility 60 miles from Fort Irwin, which has been a closed military facility pursuant to the base closing situation is currently operating as a civilian airport. Ten million dollars was included in the fiscal year 1995 appropriation to upgrade Barstow-Daggett. It has not been spent. This bill now proposes to appropriate an additional $10 million for Barstow- Daggett, although construction will not begin until 1997. In addition, the bill contains language that will instruct the Army to reopen the closed George Air Force Base, reopen a closed base in this time of closing bases, to be used as the interim air base for Fort Irwin until Barstow-Daggett reaches initial operational capability. I will be offering an amendment later to delete that language. Why should the taxpayers be forced to pay who knows how much to reopen a closed Air Force base when an operating Air Force base, Edwards, can be used instead? In the meantime the Army has been working on a study which is due to be released in August, 2 months from now, to assess the various options and recommend the proper course of action. Construction at Barstow- Daggett is not due to begin until 1997. Why cannot we wait until the study is completed in 2 months before deciding which is the best most cost-effective way to proceed? Some will argue that the roads between Fort Irwin and Edwards Air Force Base are unsafe, compared to the roads between George Air Force Base and Fort Irwin. A study by the Army indicates the opposite. The American Automobile Association, with whom we spoke in Redlands, CA, has provided to us the following information. From Fort Irwin to Edwards Air Force Base is 90 miles, almost entirely freeway driving. No unsafe roads were mentioned. I have a chart here that illustrates what I am saying. From Fort Irwin to George is 60 miles. Edwards, 90 miles freeway driving; Barstow-Daggett, 35 miles. Is this somewhat shorter distance, 35 miles as against 90, when the 90 miles is freeway driving, an hour and a half, worth $32 million of taxpayer funds to upgrade Barstow-Daggett to have a 10,000-foot runway, plus the cost of reopening a closed military Air Force base at George for temporary use? I doubt that. Now, it may be that the Army study due out in August will show that for reasons unknown to us, that is the best way. But why not wait until August to determine that? This bill contains an appropriation of $10 million more for Barstow- Daggett, though as I said construction cannot begin until 1997. So if we do not fund it now it would not delay it. And the committee further instructs the Army to reopen George Air Force Base which has been closed as a part of downsizing. Mr. Chairman, this is not cut and save. This sounds a lot more like the old tax and spend. What happened to downsizing? What happened to the rhetoric heard in this Chamber while we were slashing programs for children, the needy, veterans, and the elderly? Yes, we have to make tough choices, but our story could have a happy ending if we passed this amendment and saved the taxpayer this money.

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Dr. Arthur S. Flemming, former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, as well as former Commissioner on Aging, on the occasion of his receiving an award of distinction from the Joint Public Affairs Committee for Older Adults [JPAC], a social action coalition of older adult representatives from over 120 senior centers and community groups throughout metropolitan New York. Arthur Flemming served as Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in the late 1950's. His critical role in the adoption of the Medicare Program began in the early 1960's, with his chairmanship of a special commission that offered proposals for a national program to meet the health needs of older Americans. The 1971 White House Conference on Aging, with Arthur Flemming as its chairman, adopted significant recommendations later adopted into law, including the establishment of the Supplemental Security Income Program [SSI], support to build housing specifically designed for the elderly, and nursing home reform. He served as Commissioner on Aging from 1973 until 1978. Arthur Flemming's commitment to public service included his role as chairman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. In the 1980's Arthur Flemming again showed his extraordinary leadership as cochairman of Save Our Social Security [SOS], a coalition of 120 national groups devoted to stave off threatened cuts in Medicare and Social Security. He continues to be a forceful voice in efforts to achieve a program of affordable and accessible health care for all Americans. Generations to come will remember Arthur S. Flemming as someone who has always spoken out with courage, has translated his values into action. In so doing he has made a difference in the lives of millions of people across this country. His energy and ideas continue to inspire many to join in the quest for a more just society. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join with me in paying tribute to Arthur S. Flemming.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, we have been consulted about this request. We have no objection. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I will object.