Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, without this amendment, the bill would prohibit abortions at Defense Department medical facilities abroad, even though no public moneys would be used to fund such abortions. It would deny American servicewomen the same constitutional rights, the same medical services available to women in the United States. The ignorant and incorrect statement of the preceding speaker notwithstanding, the Surpreme Court has declared the right to abortion a fundamental constitutional right. Mr. Chairman, remember, we are not talking here of taxpayers' funds. The servicewomen would pay for their own abortions. No doctors would be forced to perform abortions. The conscientious clause remains. This bill is an assault. It is discrimination against our Nation's servicewomen abroad, not only because we would deny them a right they are entitled to on American soil, but because we would force them to risk their lives in often substandard foreign medical facilities if they wish to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to choose. This attack on American women must not be allowed to stand. I urge amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my outrage with the Republican proposal to force the Nation's seniors to pay for their tax cut for the rich. The Republican budget proposal would force our seniors to pay more than $1,000 out of pocket for medical care each year, while giving the very wealthiest 1 percent of Americans an annual windfall of $20,000. It is outrageous that at a time when our Nation's seniors are struggling to make ends meet the Republicans have chosen to make their medical care more expensive. We must not force our seniors to pick up the tab for a huge tax break for the very wealthiest Americans. The Republicans claim that they must cut Medicare because they project that the system will be out of money in 7 years. But even if you accept their figures, and I certainly do not, most of the $286 billion the Republicans would cut from Medicare and take from our senior citizens would be used to pay for their tax cuts. A windfall for the very wealthy, not to save the future of Medicare for seniors. For shame.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith amendment. I want to simply state that I differ from my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], in that we ought to protect refugees, whether they are refugees from communistic dictatorships or from any other dictatorships. They have the same human rights, and we ought to protect them. Clearly in this instance the Smith amendment ought to be adopted, and the Bereuter amendment replaced, because we should protect these refugees, and because the so-called screening over there, most human rights observers and organizations have said is not adequate. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith amendment to the Bereuter amendment. If adopted without the Smith amendment the Bereuter amendment will make the United States complicit in the persecution of thousands of Southeast Asian refugees. Forget the rhetoric of the nativism demagogues, the Bereuter amendment would not close any loophole in our immigration law, because none exists. In fact, it would shatter what is best and most balanced in our refugee policy. Without Smith, the Bereuter amendment would eliminate language in the bill requiring that no one can be returned to Vietnam with the assistance of American taxpayer money until they receive a fair and impartial screening to determine if they are genuine refugees. [[Page H5539]] Is there something wrong with that? The language of the bill is straightforward: It provides up to $30 million for the relocation of Vietnamese, Laotian, or Cambodian refugees. It prohibits the use of U.S. funds to repatriate those refugees unless the President can certify that bona fide refugees, and only bona fide refugees, have been offered, not even placed in but offered resettlement outside their countries of nationality. That means relocation anywhere else, not only to the United States. It also requires the President to certify that the process of determining refugee status conforms to our basic commitment to fairness, honesty, and due process. The bill does not, as you may have heard, require that all these refugees come to the United States. Read the bill, it's on pages 102- 103. The bill does not steal money away from refugees from the former Soviet Union. Eighty million dollars is set aside for that purpose on page 101. So what is all the excitement about? These refugees are not on U.S. soil; our Government is not running these refugee camps. Is it too much to suggest that we should not pay for their forced repatriation until we can be assured that they will not face persecution? For those refugees who will come to the United States, this bill does not create any new refugee slots. In fact it does not even use all of the slots available. These are refugees who quality for resettlement, that is, refugees who are persecuted for their past affiliation with the United State or who have been persecuted on the basis of religion or ethnicity. We must not abandon our commitment to honesty, fairness, and decency. I know money for refugee programs is politically unpopular these days. At the very least we should agree that those scarce dollars that are available should not be used to move refugees involuntarily to their countries of origin to face persecution. Mr. Speaker, I opposed the war in Vietnam. Many of our colleagues here supported that war, and some even fought there. Those differences still have the power to divide this Nation. The mere suggestion that some may come from the northern part of Vietnam sill seems to have the power to suggest to some Members that these refugees will make war on us when they arrive here. I think that, regardless of the stand you took 25 years ago, if you ever cared about the people of Southeast Asia, of if you were moved to take a stand on either side because the preservation of fundamental American values was important to you, then you must help adopt the Smith amendment. I urge a yes vote on Smith and no vote on Bereuter.

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strongest opposition to this budget resolution. This budget proposes to eliminate the Federal deficit by 2002, yet gives a tax cut to the wealthiest Americans. While we must work toward a balanced budget, we must do so responsibly. We must not force those most in need to bear the burden of balancing the budget alone. In this budget, the House Republicans have chosen to take away health and financial security to seniors in order to achieve tremendous tax breaks to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. While the Republican budget proposes to make millions of seniors pay an additional $1,060 in out-of-pocket Medicare expenses each year, it provides a tax windfall of $20,000 per year for Americans with incomes over $350,000. This bill is a direct assault on our Nation's seniors. In addition to the Medicare cuts, the Republicans are also planning to cut Social Security benefits to seniors, which would result in an average reduction of $240 in benefits for individual seniors in 2002. The Republicans said their budget would make tough choices and they were right--their choices will be tough on millions of seniors who rely on Medicare and Social Security. But seniors are not the only victims of this misguided budget scheme. The Republican budget would make educational opportunity a thing of the past for many middle class students and their families. It is appalling that the Republican budget cuts student loans by $18.7 billion by charging students interest on their loans while they are still in school. This will increase the cost of a higher education by approximately $5,000 for every student receiving a loan to fiance a college education. Is this the Republican opportunity society? The Republican plan to terminate many very crucial programs that provide the most basic assistance to those most in need is similarly appalling. Some of the many programs devastated by this budget include: Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS; the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP], which ensures low-income Americans, including seniors, access to heat during the cold winter months; unemployment insurance extension benefits; and job training and education programs. The list goes on an on. This resolution also dramatically undermines Americas' access to the arts and humanities by cutting the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the National Endowment for the Arts, and the Endowment for the Humanities. The inequities in this Republican budget are blatant and outrageous. This budget requires those most in need to shoulder the burden of balancing the budget, while granting the wealthiest of Americans a windfall. Mr. Chairman, this bill is unfair, it is unjust, and must be voted down. I ask my colleagues to reject the budget resolution.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Indiana would lose $58 million under the gentleman's substitute.

Mr. NADLER. Could the gentleman answer the following questions? The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] gave us a list of States, of how much they would lose under the committee's formula compared to his formula. It names some of the larger losers, and can the gentleman tell me the corresponding figures for his substitute, please?

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

Mr. NADLER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, it is never a valid argument against an amendment that the people supporting the amendment may or may not support the bill. The question is, What does the bill look like at the end? I cannot tell you right now what the bill is going to look like at the end. I reserve judgment on whether I will vote.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, if many of the other changes that I and others on this side have suggested are adopted, I would certainly consider it.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, here are the differences. The States that have greater needs and greater populations would not be substantially benefited and treated substantially more fairly under the substitute offered by the gentleman from Virginia. Compare: Washington would only lose $28 million instead of $35 million. Is $7 million substantial? It would still lose $28 million from what it should get. Virginia would lose $18 million instead of $27 million. New York would lose $270 million. It is better than $318 million, but still $270 million. Unfair. Illinois would lose $63 million. Better than $83 million. California would lose $155 million. A little better than $186 million, but still $155 million less than it should get. Georgia, $14 million; Florida, $3 million. The sum and substance, Mr. Chairman, is that most States, the majority of States, 26 States, would be treated Six States would gain. There is no reason for that other than a desire to protect the States which have relatively less need, and in this era of fiscal stringency, where we are going to be cutting down the funds appropriated pursuant to this appropriations bill, we should not treat the States unfairly.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I would simply observe the gentleman's substitute does very little, as you heard from those figures, to undo the inequity of the committee formula. The gentleman's substitute should not be adopted. The amendment of the gentleman from Illinois, which bases the allocation formula strictly on needs and on population based on the 1990 census, should be adopted as continuing the tradition of the House to base these allocations fairly on population and on needs. And if some States have much less needs currently, so be it. If others have greater, they should get proportionately what they need.

Mr. NADLER. Georgia would lose $20 million under the gentleman's substitute.

Mr. NADLER. And Florida would lose $3 million. Under the gentleman's substitute, how much would it lose?

Mr. NADLER. California would lose $186 million under the gentleman's substitute.

Mr. NADLER. Arizona would lose $50 million. How much would it lose under the substitute?

Mr. NADLER. Illinois would lose $83 million. How much would it lose under the substitute?

Mr. NADLER. New York loses $318 million. Under the gentleman's substitute, how much would it lose?

Mr. NADLER. Virginia loses $27 million. How much would it lose under the amendment?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me first make a couple of comments here. Allocations of highway funding should be based on need and population. That is the tradition in the House and the fairest way. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois bases the allocations on the latest needs figures from 1990 and on the latest population figures from the 1990 census. Of course, they differ from the needs and population figured in 1970, 20 years ago, based on a 20-year-old formula. Of course, some States have greater needs now relative to others and greater population now relative to others, and others have less. They should gain and lose accordingly. If some States have much less needs, then they should have much less funds. If some States have much more needs, they should get a much greater proportion. That is the fairest way to do it, and that is what the gentleman from Illinois does, and that is the tradition we have followed over the years. The committee formula bases it on current needs and population, modified by a hold-harmless formula to say that those States which no longer have the need relative to others should continue getting more than they need relative to others. The substitute of the gentleman from Virginia says well, we are not going to continue that indefinitely, but we are going to continue to give an unfair proportion to some States, to 6 States, and an unfairly low proportion to 26 States, for 5 years. In fact, for any that are off balance by more than 20 percent, indeterminately. It is not fair and not right. Therefore I urge the defeat of the substitute amendment and the adoption of the amendment. With that, I will ask if the gentleman from Illinois would answer a couple of questions. I would ask the gentleman, under the committee formula, Washington loses $35 million. How much would it lose under the gentleman from Virginia's amendment?

Mr. NADLER. Would the gentleman yield to the gentleman from Illinois so we can get those figures?