Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida is quite correct when he says that we are granting this flexibility to the States. The key difference, of course, is that under current law the administrator of EPA has to agree with the State that is changing the designated use that it meets the requirements of the law. That in effect is being removed here. Here the final authority is the States. That is exactly the kind of flexibility which would mean that there would be no uniform standard across the country to make sure that States are in fact making proper progress toward Clean Water Act standards, and that is a key difference.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I want to join with the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] in expressing my shock, outrage, and contempt for what was said on the floor of this House a little while ago. To express gratuitous bigotry when the subject of gays and lesbians in the military was not on the agenda--we are debating an environmental bill--for someone to get up and make an ad hominem attack on an environmental bill by saying, ``What do you expect from someone who would support homos in the military,'' is beneath the dignity of what should be uttered on the floor of this House and deserves condemnation by every decent individual in this House.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today so that we will not have to see signs like the one to my left in the future. It is the right of citizens of this country to have clean water. If this bill is passed in its current form, the signs will never come down. During the committee markup of this legislation, Mr. Chairman, I introduced an amendment that would have deleted a section of the bill that allowed pollution controls to be lowered or eliminated for waterways that had already controls outweighed the benefit of maintaining the level of water quality in the opinion of the State. I would like to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] for taking this section of the bill out of the bill in his en bloc amendments we adopted yesterday. While I am pleased this was done, I believe we must go further. The bill still permits States to abandon all efforts to attain the previously set water quality goals, or even any water quality goals at all, if the State determines that in its opinion the cost of reaching the designated water quality standard outweighs the benefit. My amendment would delete this section of the bill and maintain the current process in which the designated use, the designated quality, fishable, swimmable, navigable, can be reviewed by the State every 3 years. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment for the following reasons: First, this bill waives Clean Water Act quality standards if the cost outweighs the benefit of keeping the water clean. I ask, how do you measure the benefit of parents being able to take their children fishing, or of children using their favorite watering hole, or a fisherman making their livelihoods, and how do you determine whether that outweighs the cost of attaining that level of water quality? The bill does not define what constitutes a benefit that would outweigh the cost, and vice versa. The bill does not define how to measure the cost versus the benefit and what standards to apply to measure which exceeds the other. Second, proponents of this bill never referred to any problems with the current guidelines for determining how clean the waterway must be, what standards must be attained, nor does this bill try to modify existing guidelines. They do not identify why we should change it. Instead, the bill reflects the notion that if a State believes it is too expensive to reach the water quality levels set pursuant to the standards that it already determined, and that it can change every 3 years, then you can just stop, or not try quite as hard to clean up the water. The bill essentially says in this section that we do not really care about the health and well-being of the people using this water. If it is expensive for a polluter to clean up the water, do not bother. In other words, the cost to the polluter is more important than the health of our children under this text. Third, the current law gives the States ample flexibility to adjust the designated uses of a waterway and the level of water quality they must attain. Current law reflects that every 3 years this must be reviewed in the practicality of keeping the designation of each waterway, whether it be fishable, swimmable, navigable, must be reviewed every 3 years. They must take into account health, safety, agricultural, industrial, and recreational uses of the waterway. The States can then, after EPA approval, increase the amount of pollution that is allowed into those waters. Some of my colleagues argue we should trust the States to make these determinations without EPA approval and allow them greater flexibility. But this is not just a matter of trusting the States. It has to do with preventing polluters, big businesses, from in essence blackmailing the States by saying to a State if you do not lower the water quality standards, we will move to the other States and we will take our taxes and our jobs with us. The only way to protect the States against this form of blackmail by big polluters is to have the EPA still have a role to set minimal standards, so that the State can say well, while you may be able to move because you do not want to attain the quality standards here, but you will not be able to do the same kind of pollution in the next State either. It also has to do with preventing interstate pollution. If one State lowers its water quality standards in their section of a river, that pollution then flows down the river to other States that need the same water for fishing or recreational, agricultural, fishing or drinking purposes. As I mentioned earlier, the States already have the ability to lower water quality standards if they need to do so. But by including this cost-benefit analysis without any guidelines, it gives too much leverage to large polluters. Finally it says that the State may eliminate the water quality standard if the State determines that the costs of achieving the designated use are not justified by the benefits. It can go to no standard at all. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we must adopt this amendment and get rid of this language if we are going to attain a safe and healthy environment for people to fish, swim, and drink the water.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the fundamental question in this amendment is twofold. One, do we not believe, do we recognize that the water quality standards are not, first of all, an issue only with respect to one State? Rivers flow through several States. It is not simply the case that a decision on the quality of water only affects necessarily that one State. When one State decides to permit pollution to continue because it thinks it is too expensive, the costs outweigh the benefits, that will affect the next State the river runs through. This is not simply something that we can keep within one State. Second, it is not simply a question of do we trust the States? We know that the States are subject to pressures that exceed what the Federal Government is exposed to. We know that the polluting businesses have a major way, a major leverage over the State to tell the State, You had better give us this ability to keep polluting. Do not make us spend this money or move to the other State. That does not mean the State officials necessarily agree that it is better to let the pollution continue. But they might agree that they have no choice but to submit to this ultimatum and say, We will let you continue polluting. We will lower the water quality standards because we do not want to lose the jobs and the taxes. The Federal Government is not subject to that pressure and therefore can better represent, therefore has to be in a partnership with the State to represent the interests of the people to fishable, navigable, swimmable, drinkable, safe, clean water. Therefore, I urge the adoption of this amendment.

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the Clean Water Act, since 1972 has been one of the most successful pieces of legislation ever enacted by this Congress. Yet many Members of this body made. During the first 100 days of this Congress, we have heard a lot of talk of Government waste and commonsense reform. Apparently this talk applied only to legislation in the first 100 days. Two years ago, for example, we ordered a study by the National Academy of Sciences of wetlands to define just what a wetland is. The findings of that study were released just yesterday. What use has H.R. 961 made of this information? None. The findings of this multimillion dollar study are not reflected in this bill at all. We all knew the study results were promised for May, but the authors of H.R. 961 could not wait. Apparently whatever is driving this bill, it is not scientific information. The Nation's wetlands, of course, provide a vital source of filtration for our drinking water. But this bill attempts to redefine wetlands. H.R. 961 provides that only 20 percent of the wetlands in the region may be deemed a critical wetland. That leaves 80 percent of the wetlands open for development. Why is only 20 percent of our wetlands going to be protected? This arbitrary standard will deprive 80 percent of our wetlands of any protection and will deprive us of the benefits of that 80 percent. In New York City we have some of the cleanest drinking water in the United States. We have accomplished this not by building a massive filtration system but by protecting the integrity of our watershed and letting nature do its job. This bill throws out or makes voluntary many of the regulations that protect our watershed. If this dirty water bill passes, it is likely that New York City will have to spend between $6 and $8 billion to build a filtration system to imitate what nature has already accomplished; is that right? Mr. Chairman, this is not fiscal conservatism. It is not anything we should do.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in an effort to shed light on a problem on nearly everyone's mind these days--the problem of terrorism--the problem of a relatively small number of violent lawbreakers who have set out to undermine our democratic way of life and seek either to blackmail the government through violence or the threat of violence to comply with their demands, or to overthrow the government entirely. What these misguided zealots are attempting to do is to create a climate of fear so great that Americans can't even drop off their children at day care in the morning without having to worry if it will be the last time they will ever see them. This climate of violence and fear is sometimes fostered by people who organize or join so-called militias invoke our Founding Fathers to defend heinous acts of senseless violence, or to advocate such violence. How ironic! How tragic! In Hamilton, MT, U.S. District Court Judge Jeff Langton received the following letter: We are prepared . . . to defend with our life, our Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. We number in the thousands in your area and everywhere else. . . . How many of your agents will be sent home in body bags before you hear the pleas of the people? Proceed at your own peril. It was signed by the ``North American Militia.'' In April of this year, in eastern Montana, approximately 15 men, calling themselves ``freemen,'' placed million-dollar bounties on a county judge, a sheriff, a county attorney and on other local officials who they felt were infringing on their rights. While these particular threats have not yet resulted in violent terrorist acts, they well illustrate the dangers that now confront law- abiding Americans. We must not give in to the terrorists. We need to enforce the laws we have, and to enact whatever legal authority we need to deal with this domestic terrorist threat. But we must also be ever vigilant not to destroy the very freedoms we are attempting to protect. If we do that, then America loses and the terrorists win. We have seen some attempts here in Congress to deal with both domestic and international terrorism. Many of these initiatives will bring much needed and appropriate relief. Some threaten the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must be careful not to use a scatter-shot approach, because, as every hunter knows, scatter-shot often strikes innocent bystanders along with, or even instead of, the intended target. Some proposals, already presented to the Judiciary Committee, would violate such fundamental and sacred protections of our liberties as: the right to a fair and public trial; the right to confront witnesses; the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; and the right to require that government prove criminal charges beyond a reasonable doubt. These rights set our Nation apart. They safeguard our freedom. We can defend our families, our communities, and our laws without violating the Constitution, without tearing down the bulwarks of our liberties, and without trampling on the rights of the accused. I have introduced H.R. 1544, the Domestic Insurgency Act of 1995, which would give our law enforcement officers the legal authority they need to crack down on one major aspect of domestic terrorism--the private armies or militias that have recently proliferated across our land. This narrowly focused bill would prohibit participating knowingly in private paramilitary activities is it can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of twelve Americans that the individual intended to use violence against the United States or any State or for any other illegal purpose. This bill does not limit the right of free speech or of free assembly or association. People would still be free to express any ideas they choose, no matter how offensive others might find them. It would in no way threaten legal activities such as the Boy Scouts, rod and gun clubs, of people participating in nonviolent citizen activist efforts. It would not affect nonviolent civil disobedience. It would not threaten the right to associate freely with like-minded people. It would penalize only those who have in their hearts the desire to overthrow our legally constituted, democratically elected government and who are bent on taking violent action to do so and who assemble arms and weaponry and practice military techniques for the purpose of doing so. Only the terrorists have any reason to fear this bill. There are those who do not understand, or who deliberately will not understand, that this bill does not violate the Constitution in any way. They use self-serving, so-called patriotic arguments to justify their opposition. While vigorous debate is a healthy and necessary part of the democratic process, invoking our Founding Fathers to rationalize terrorism does not promote productive discourse. I want my colleagues and the American people to hear what some have argued. One American writes: ``particularly in jeopardy seem to be habeas corpus, the First, Second and Fourth Amendments and restraints on the Executive Branch.'' Another writes on the Internet, ``This is an attempt to undermine the Second Amendment by outlawing the concept of `citizen militia man.''' Still a third writes, This final act of unsurpation should be considered by all who love their country, not government, as the Final Straw, and they should prepare themselves for the imposition of a police state to complete the task for denial of our rights granted by G-d. ``It is their right, it is their duty to throw off that government'' and it appears that, should this bill be passed, duty calls! A fax sent to my office reads as follows, Apparently you have never read the Constitution, if you had, you would know that your Bill is not only illegal but treasonous as well. You cannot undo what is a constitutional right (the Second Amendment), except by repeal of the Constitution itself through a Constitutional Convention! How the hell did you get in office as ignorant as you are? A fair question. Why don't we read the second amendment together? A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. What did the people who wrote the Constitution mean by ``a well- regulated Militia''? Fortunately, the people who wrote these words provided a written explanation for future generations in the Federalist Papers. In Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton makes clear, ``that the plan of the [Constitutional] Convention [which adopted the Second Amendment] proposed to empower the Union `to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.''' Hamilton further explains that, ``[i]f a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security,''--in other words Congress, to which the Constitution grants the power to raise armies. Therefore, Hamilton points out, ``[t]he power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defence, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.'' So, clearly, just because a private group of people who arm themselves with the intent to take violent action against our Government or its citizens call themselves a militia, does not make them part of the well-regulated militia referred to in the second amendment. The authors of the Constitution did not see it that way and neither has the Supreme Court. The Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and Supreme Court precedent all make crystal clear that a well-regulated militia means the auxiliary armed forces of the States that can be called into national service by the President--what we today call the National Guard. Those who attempt to cloak acts of terrorism or sedition as rights under the mantle of the second amendment ought to reread these crucial passages. We should all think about what kind of country we want to live in. To be truly patriotic means recognizing our responsibilities to uphold the democratic principles which make this the freest nation on Earth. It is important to remember that the opening words of the Constitution are ``We the People'' not ``I the People.'' Being a citizen in a democracy means that you can't organize your own private army because you disagree with the actions of the democratically elected government. If you settle political differences with bullets instead of ballots, you don't live in a democracy, you live in Beruit or Bosnia. This is America, and I don't think we want that to happen here. We have a responsibility--indeed, in a democracy we have a patriotic duty--to speak out against what we believe to about that which we want to change. Peacefully, lawfully, democratically, and with respect for the rights and liberties of those with whom we disagree--that's the American way.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does two things with respect to the Coast Guard base on Governors Island. The Coast Guard base on Governors Island has been there since the Revolutionary War and is the largest Coast Guard base anywhere in the United States. The amendment, as I said, does two things. It permits civilian employees who work at the Governors Island base in my district to compete for available jobs at bases anywhere in the country should their jobs be eliminated because of closure or relocation of the Governors Island base, which closure would eliminate approximately 600 Federal civilian positions. These hardworking people under current law would not be allowed to follow their work if it were relocated elsewhere in the country because their authorized geographical area within which they are entitled to follow the work is limited to New York, and there are no Federal Coast Guard jobs left in New York, and if the Governors Island base is relocated to, for example, Virginia or Florida, under current regulations these civilian employees would not be allowed to pursue those new positions. So the first thing the amendment does is permit them to do so. The second thing the amendment would do would be to permit civilian employees currently working at the Governors Island base who are within 5 years of retirement to become eligible for full retirement benefits if they are displaced as a result of the base closure. This amendment would affect, this provision, affects, approximately 43 people who are within 5 years of retirement and would not otherwise be eligible for retirement benefits, and I would be pleased to support colleagues in offering the same protections with civil employees who work at other Coast Guard bases that may be closed or realigned. These people have loyally served the Coast Guard and have loyally served our country for over a decade and should not be cast aside when the Government goes on doing its business. If the base closes, they will not have the opportunity to work at all to earn full time retirement benefits because there are no Federal jobs in the area. The civilian men and women at the Governors Island installation have worked hard, they have played by the rules, they should be treated fairly, and that is what this amendment in both its provisions does, and, therefore, I ask for the enactment of this amendment. point of order

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides that the Secretary may not close or realign any Coast Guard installation except in accordance with the procedures set forth in Public Law 101-510, which is to say except in accordance with the procedures utilized by the Base Closure Commission. This amendment would ensure that decisions regarding which installation of the Coast Guard may be closed in the future would be fair and impartial by requiring they be made according to the procedures that we have established for the Defense base closure and realignment by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act. We have established an independent commission to determine military base closures. This has achieved its purpose of providing a fair process that preserves the national interests and safety while affording fairness to affected regions. The same procedure is equally relevant and necessary if we are going to embark upon a course of closing Coast Guard installations to ensure a good Federal policy and fairness to different regions. Mr. Chairman, as we streamline Government, we must maintain maritime safety, and we should use fair and impartial procedures to determine which Coast Guard bases are appropriate to close or realign, and I believe that the existing Base Closure and Realignment Commission could undertake this additional duty without a greater additional cost. So I submit this amendment, and I ask its enactment.

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

Mr. NADLER. I await the ruling of the Chair.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the sentiment expressed by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] in his willingness to work with me in seeking to attain the aim of fairness and adequate consideration of closure of major facilities, and I must say that I did not intend this amendment, Mr. Coble, to apply to small boat stations. I had in mind major facilities such as the Coast Guard station on Governors Island and other such major facilities which are really analogous to major military bases and, I think, should get analogous treatment, and I certainly would not want to tamper with the committee's jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the committee on which I sit. So I would look forward to working with the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] to work out this question to afford a fairer way of determining which major installations should be closed, if any, in a fair and impartial manner and with the assurances that they would be willing to work on this. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on May 1, Community Board No. 6 of Manhattan honored Louis Sepersky, its immediate past chair. It is a fitting tribute to an outstanding New Yorker who has dedicated his life to service to, and advocacy for, his community at the grassroots level. I have known Lou Sepersky for more than 30 years, and I am proud to call him a friend and to have worked with him as a colleague in the many challenges we shared. In addition to his serving as chair of Community Board No. 6, Lou's many positions of leadership at the local and national level include service as a district leader on Manhattan's East Side and as New York City chapter president of Americans for Democratic Action. Mr. Speaker, too often we forget that this Nation was built through the achievements of citizens who exhibited uncommon character, determination, and ability to bring about change for the betterment of their fellow citizens. Lou Sepersky is one such outstanding citizen. It is most fitting that Community Board No. 6 should honor Lou Sepersky, and that we honor him and Americans like him, who care enough to make a difference.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a woman who has saved lives and changed lives--Barbara Seaman. Best known for her ground-breaking expose of the health risks associated with the pill, ``The Doctors' Case Against the Pill,'' Barbara Seaman changed the way women view medicine, and forced the medical establishment to begin changing the way many medical professionals view women who are their patients. When thousands of women taking the then-newly available pill began to experience serious side effects--some deadly--it was Barbara Seaman who told them why. A 1970 Gallup poll found that two-thirds of women taking the pill had not been warned of related risks by their physicians. Barbara Seaman changed that. Her book spurred the now-famous Gaylord Nelson Senate hearings which led to the requirement that inserts warning of potential side effects must be included in each pill package. At last, women could begin to make informed decisions as to their method of birth control. We cannot quantify how many lives Barbara Seaman saved through her activism, or how many lives she changed. Barbara Seaman exposed the risks associated with the pill at great personal expense. Although prior to the publication of ``The Doctors' Case Against the Pill,'' Barbara Seaman had already become a well- respected columnist, Ms. Seaman was effectively blacklisted. Advertisers displeased with Ms. Seaman's activism used their influence to convince publishers not to print anything she had written. But Barbara Seaman continued to be an advocate for women's health concerns, and went on to write additional books and to become one of the founders of the National Women's Health Network. Barbara Seaman remains a strong voice for women's health. April 27 marked the 25th anniversary of the drafting of the historic letter sent to Ms. Seaman from then-Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Robert Finch, which cited Ms. Seaman's book as: ``a major factor in our strengthening the language in the final warning published in the Federal Register to be included in each package of the pill.'' Today, I salute Barbara Seaman as a national role model. Her work has saved the lives of countless women--not only those who were taking the pill without being informed of the risks, but all women whose health care professionals have been held to a higher standard because of Ms. Seaman's work. She began a movement that is still growing, and, today, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing Barbara Seaman's extraordinary accomplishments.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my voice to the growing concern expressed by many of my colleagues over the dangerous and devastating effects of many of the actions taken by this body in recent weeks, and actions that will be taken in the coming weeks. I am gravely concerned that the frontal attack on low- and middle- income Americans that some are waging will have far-reaching effects that we cannot begin to fathom today. Some Members of this body seem to be engaged in a race to cut, with little regard to what we are cutting, and what the effects of these cuts will be to Americans who are truly in need of assistance. While there is most certainly wasteful spending occurring which must be addressed by this body, we seem to be engaged in an exercise which is driven by a complete disregard to the content of what we do, with regard only to how much we do. At the same time, we are transferring spending authority to our States, many of which are engaged in the same exercise. We must remember that the cuts we make here are being echoed in our cities and our States. Even the most cost-effective programs are being cut at the city and State level--including a small and highly effective program in New York State called NORC, designed to assist moderate- income elderly remain in their homes, rather than cost taxpayers millions by financing nursing home care. This program receives only $1 million of State funding, and cutting it would likely end up costing much more. We must resist the impulse to be penny wise and pound foolish. We must also be aware that, in our current climate, the cuts we make in Washington will be duplicated at the city and State level. We must equally resist the impulse shared by some in this House to punish those most in need of assistance--the poor, the elderly, the disabled, children, workers, legal immigrants--and to place the blame for our Nation's deficit on those who truly need assistance.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule on the Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act, H.R. 1215. The Contract With America states that ``within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.'' With a closed rule on the tax bill, the Republicans have not provided, as they said they would, for a ``full and open debate'' on this crucial legislation. I would agree that many Americans need tax relief, and that we must do all that we can to ensure fairness for our seniors and families. That is why I offered two amendments to this legislation which would have furthered these very important goals. But, unfortunately, ``full and open debate'' on these amendments was denied, and the Members of this House will not have the opportunity to vote on these amendments. My colleague from New York, Nita Lowey, and I introduced an amendment which would repeal immediately the increased tax on Social Security benefits rather than repeal it over a 5-year period, as the Republican bill does. While our amendment would have granted seniors striking from the bill a repeal of the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax--making corporations pay their fair share of taxes--it was, nonetheless, rejected by the Rules Committee. When we raised this issue of equity regarding our Nation's seniors we were hushed. While this bill does much to provide significant and immediate tax relief for wealthy corporations, it delays tax relief and fairness for our Nation's seniors. While the Republicans state that this bill will provide fairness, this, to me, does not seem fair. Repealing the Social Security tax increase immediately and paying for it by requiring Republicans to retain the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax is only fair and equitable. The Alternative Minimum Tax was adopted to stop the practice of large corporations using the talents of high- priced tax lawyers to contrive ingenious loopholes that enable them to escape all taxation. To provide these huge tax give-aways to corporations and not provide immediate tax relief and fairness to our Nation's senior would be the height of unfairness and hypocrisy. It would be a moral outrage to allow or Nation's most profitable corporations to cease paying income taxes immediately, while requiring seniors to wait half a decade for tax relief. Mr. Speaker, after restoring fairness to seniors by repealing the Social Security tax increase immediately, our amendment would have left approximately $7 billion for deficit reduction--almost half of the amount of appropriations this House rescinded earlier this month for this very purpose. Our amendment would have significantly reduced the deficit, while restoring tax fairness to our Nation's seniors, but the Republican leadership would not allow this fiscally prudent amendment to be considered on the House floor. Our amendment would have done the right thing by making profitable corporations pay their fair share and lifting this unjustified increased tax burden off senior citizens immediately. I asked, again with no success, that the Rules Committee consider another one of my amendments. The amendment would simply index income taxes to reflect regional differences in the cost of living. These differences mean that an income which might make one well off in, say, rural Arkansas, would barely afford a middle-class lifestyle in New York or Dallas. Yet the current Tax Code, by taxing nominal, rather than regionally adjusted, incomes, treats each of these taxpayers as if their incomes were economically equivalent. We know that this is not the case. People living in high cost-of-living areas, like New York City, should not be penalized by the tax system. By regionally adjusting income tax brackets, we can make the tax burden on American families more fair and equitable. Furthermore, I find it ironic that this rule waives the requirement for a three-fifths vote in order to increase taxes. The Republicans passed a rule earlier this Congress which would require that in order to increase taxes the House had to have a three-fifths vote. Now they are waiving this rule for the purposes of passing their tax bill which gives tax breaks to the wealthy. The hypocrisy here again is blatant. Mr. Speaker, this bill is unfair and I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the popular, but misguided, idea of term limits. The push for term limits is profoundly antidemocratic. It takes away the right of the people to choose whomever they want as their Representatives in free elections. What arguments have we heard for limiting the right of people to choose their Representatives? We are told that incumbents are too entrenched and that challengers do not have a fair chance of unseating them. Well, nearly half of this House has been elected for the first time since 1992, and I am part of that new wave. Senior Members, committee chairmen, even the Speaker, have been voted out of office. Entrenched incumbency just does not seem to be what it used to be. Still, Mr. Chairman, it is true that incumbents often do have an unfair advantage in elections. We should remedy that unfair advantage by passing meaningful campaign finance reform, including giving challengers access to the publicly owned airwaves so the voters will have an opportunity to learn more about them. That is how to battle the problem of entrenched incumbency, by making elections more fair and more democratic, not by making them less democratic, carelessly casting aside the right to vote for which Americans have struggled and died for more than two centuries. Besides, if term limits is my colleagues' solution to making elections more fair, what they are really saying is, ``Let's have a fair election once every 12 years; once every 6 years let's have a fair election. The others, let them be one sided.'' That is ridiculous. Every election should be a fair and free election. Campaign finance reform, not term limits, is the way to make that happen. We are told that politicians who have to worry about reelection often fail to do the right thing and, therefore, term limits would promote better government. What a vile, elitist idea. We have elections precisely because we want our Representatives to be always mindful of what the people want. The word for that is ``accountability,'' and accountability to the people is what good government in a free society is all about. A lame duck, who is more likely to be thinking about his or her next job instead of thinking about representing the people as they wished to be represented will be more accountable to the special interests with jobs to offer than to the people whose ballot will be debased to irrelevance. Let us not replace the ballot box with the revolving door as the symbol of our democracy. We will always have Representatives who believe they know better on a given matter than their constituents, and from time to time they may be right. They have the responsibility to do and vote as they believe to be right, and then to try to persuade the voters that they were right or that they nonetheless merit reelection. But a free people has the ultimate right and responsibility to control its own destiny and to live with the consequences of their judgments. We should not take away or restrict that freedom. There is one final argument that must be answered, that Congress should be composed solely of people serving relatively short stints before returning to their real careers, that a career in service to one's community and country is somehow dishonorable. I reject that. We have elections to ensure that the people retain the power to judge the quality of their representation. But if they deem that representation to be good and honorable, then they should be permitted to continue it if they want. Are we to deny the people the right to choose modern-day Henry Clays or Daniel Webster if they want to? The proponents of term limits would say yes. I say no. I believe we should be about democracy and accountability, and I therefore oppose this dangerous, antidemocratic, and fundamentally elitist constitutional amendment.