Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii. I consider this substitute to be the most viable welfare reform bill before us today. Mr. Chairman, the Republican welfare reform bill is nothing but an assault on America's children, and on America's future. It would cut $46 billion from vital family survival programs, denying benefits to millions of children who are in desperate need. During this debate, my colleagues have eloquently described the great harm to children that would result from the Republican bill. From cuts in nutrition programs, to eliminating AFDC for children born to unwed mothers younger than 18 and, if States so choose, 21, the Republican alternative will cause suffering--or worse--for millions of innocent children nationwide. The costs of the Republican welfare reform proposal would be vast. While children would suffer, States would be left to bear the financial burden of the long-term damage the bill would cause. I authored an amendment which the Rules Committee did not permit to be considered on the House floor. The amendment called for the Federal Government to pay for the additional direct and indirect costs incurred as a result of reduced funding to certain Federal social programs. So, for example, States would not be burdened with the additional long-term costs of treating the brain damage caused in children by malnutrition resulting from elimination of WIC and other nutritional programs. This amendment, which would have helped States deal financially with the long-range devastation caused by the Republican bill was rejected for consideration on the floor of the House. It would seem that some merely want to cut benefits for children now, without addressing the long-term harm that would result, and the long-term costs that would be incurred. The substitute before us now is a much more effective means of facilitating and rewarding independence. The Mink substitute emphasizes work and education, improves child support collections, and invests in child care assistance for low-income working parents. It also invests in nutrition programs, and in health coverage to protect the well-being of mothers and children. It encourages work by investing in real training. It does not discriminate against tax-paying, legal immigrants by denying them benefits. And it does not punish children by imposing an arbitrary cutoff of benefits. This substitute would result in real opportunities for those currently receiving assistance instead of arbitrarily penalizing those in need. I urge my colleagues to support this very positive amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which requires the States to adopt procedures under which liens may be imposed automatically against the property of persons who are delinquent in child support payments in another State, and also of the next amendment providing for suspension of drivers and professional licenses for child support delinquencies. The nonpayment of child support is an urgent public crisis that compromises the economic security of a very large number of American children and families. In 1994, more than half the children living in single-parent families were poor, and the majority, the large majority of them were in families where the child support payments were delinquent. Before I came to this House, I was the author of bills in the New York State Legislature which allowed for liens to be placed against the property of persons who were delinquent in their child support payments and which provided for suspension of drivers and professional licenses of delinquent payors. The lien bill passed and resulted in a large increase in child support collections in New York. The amendments before us today would improve the collection of child support in an area where we have serious collection difficulties, interstate collections. Interstate child support cases comprise 30 percent of all child support cases and a very large fraction of the failures of collection. The effective child support enforcement helps many single-parent families make the move to independence, self-reliance. This approach has succeeded in New York, and it will improve the lives of single parents and their children across the country. This amendment will let absent parents know we are serious about collecting due child support. It will contribute to improving the economic conditions of children and families and will to survive. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the next amendment as two very worthy amendments to what is, unfortunately, a very bad bill but which will improve that bill significantly.

Mr. NADLER. Could the gentleman answer the second question?

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to ask of the sponsors two questions: No. 1, the question of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel]. If someone is a fugitive, how is it that we are paying him anything, since the definition of a fugitive is we do not know where he is and he is not declaring it because he is on the run from the law? The second question is: The meaning of the amendment, where it says that if a child, a second provision of the of time that you would not give the welfare to that family. My question is would you simply not give the welfare attributable to that child during the period of absence or for other children also who may be present in the home?

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably delayed in returning from the White House and missed the vote on the rule. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida which would rescind $15 million, in addition to the $5 million rescission already in the bill, from the National Endowment for the Arts' meager but important fiscal year 1995 budget. We should increase or maintain current levels of Federal support for the arts and humanities, not pull the foundation out from under cultural projects in most communities throughout the Nation, which benefit virtually every American. I introduced an amendment to restore the $5 million to the NEA and $5 billion to the NEH which would be rescinded by this bill. With an unreasonably restrictive rule and a mere 10 hours of debate on a bill covering every Federal expenditure, my colleagues will not have the opportunity to discuss the merits of maintaining the NEA and NEH budgets. Some may say that during a time of drastic Federal cutbacks, we should expect and accept reduced funding for the arts and humanities. Drastic reductions in fiscal year 1995 appropriations to the valuable programs funded through the NEA have already been made. It is now time to look for somewhere else to cut. The NEA exemplifies successful public-private cooperation, impressive returns on a Federal investment, and an efficient and productive Federal agency on a skeleton budget. With a budget totaling only a fraction of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget each year since 1965, when the NEA was established, the Endowment has made a substantial contribution to promoting art and culture in America. Since the NEA was established, the number of symphony orchestras has grown from 110 to 220, dance companies have shot up from 37 to over 250, opera companies have increased from 56 to 420, and state arts agencies are up from 5 to 565. Congress should continue its important role of supporting arts, culture and the humanities in America. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and any other attempts to undermine Federal commitment to the arts.

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, this is a vital amendment. The HOPWA Program providing funds for housing for people with AIDS, for people who are dying, not only will save money, does save money, as my colleague from New York says, it provides money for housing for people who are dying who would otherwise be on the streets. In my district, which is probably the epicenter of the AIDS epidemic, it is absolutely vital, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the intention of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke]. I had a similar amendment, similar but different, in committee, which I am sorry that the Committee on Rules did not make in order. The purpose of punitive damages, the main purpose, is to deter, to deter egregious, terrible conduct. When we are dealing with a malefactor of great wealth, as the Republican President once put it, you need a large punitive award. But why should the individual victim be unjustly enriched just because the tort feasor was a very wealthy individual or a big corporation. So I do not mind the limit of $250,000 or 3 times the economic damage, whichever is greater, as the recovery for the victim. But that will totally limit the deterrent effect against the large tort feasor. So I suggested let the victim get the $250,000 or 3 times economic damage, whichever is greater, and let government, for deficit reduction, get any award in excess of that. So you still get the deterrent effect, but not unjust enrichment. The gentleman from Ohio turned it around, and he says let us give 75 percent to the government of the excess over $250,000 below 3 times economic damages. So if the economic damage was $400,000, 3 times economic damages would be $1.2 million. Mr. Hoke says limit what the victim gets to $250,000 plus a quarter of that difference. So this is reducing below what the bill said the possible recovery is. I think this is wrong because the victim is entitled to some reasonable recovery of punitive damages in relation to economic damages.

Mr. NADLER. Yes. Reclaiming my time, that is exactly the point. There should not be a cap on punitive damages necessary as a deterrent but to avoid unjust enrichment. I can understand the cap on the recovery to the victim. But to cap the total award and then to say underneath that cap we are going to say the victim cannot get it all, that I think is wrong to the victim and does not provide an adequate deterrent to the tort feasor.

Mr. NADLER. But what the gentleman is doing goes further. What the gentleman is saying is the cap of 3 times economic damages $250,000, and we are going to deny part that have to the victim. If you want to say we should not have any cap at all, then it makes sense to say to the victim he should not unjustly enrich himself to any extent. I urge defeat of the amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, in 1986 I and a number of other Members of this House were members of the New York Legislature and we took up the issue of medical malpractice. We made so-called tort reforms, we limited joined and several liability, we limited ability of continent fees, and did a number of other things. But we also ordered a study to see what was really going on, what would really work to reduce malpractice premiums. Several years later, the Harvard study that we had ordered came down. What it showed is this: It showed that limiting damages for pain and suffering to a quarter of a million dollars would not reduce insurance premiums. It showed that 2 percent of the doctors were responsible for 80 percent of the claims and 80 percent of the awards, that the real answer to this problem of insurance premiums overwhelming the doctors is to tell the States to crack down on the 1\1/2\ percent or 2 percent of the doctors who are killing and maiming people because they are incompetent and are driving up everyone else's insurance rates. Victimizing the victim further by this amendment is not the answer. Cracking down on incompetent doctors is the answer.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to deliver a eulogy for a major pillar of the Republican Contract on America. This rule buries perhaps the only part of the contract that justifiably earned the support of most Members on both sides of the aisle. The Republican majority has entertained us over the past few weeks with moving lectures on the importance of States rights and local autonomy. They have further declared what they describe as a new openness, which supposedly allows unprecedented freedom of debate on important issues on the floor of this, the People's House. How hypocritical and really tragic, then, that on this legislation that obliterates the rights of consumers to be protected against dangerous products and against those cynical corporations that calculate that there is more money to be made by selling exploding cars or medications with life-threatening side effects than by cleaning up their act. The closed rule would severely censure the debate. I and others, for example, have proposed amendments that would preserve the States' authority over tort law. These amendments were not made in order. Is this the fine print in the contract? Are we to be forced to listen to pious homilies about local control, about an end to the Washington-knows-best attitude, but when it comes to something as important as the rights of consumers who have been injured or killed, local authorities no longer are on the list of the Speaker's approved political vocabulary and it is not even considered important enough to allow it to be debated on the floor of the House? The State's authority over tort law, over medical malpractice and product liability, is to be consigned to history without even a moment's debate on the floor? What a mockery. What hypocrisy. The Republican leadership is afraid of an open debate on the arrogation to the Federal Government of the entire field of tort law. For 200 years, Mr. Speaker, tort law and consumer protection have been entrusted to the States. Today an arrogant national government coldly steals that power without a moment's discussion on the floor of this House. Mr. Speaker, I hope the American people are watching today's vote. I hope they keep track of who supports this political power grab. I hope the American people will remember this vote the next time someone who voted for this closed rule delivers a pious but empty and hypocritical sermon about States rights or about open government. Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of this terribly shameful closed rule.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from California

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to exempt civil rights lawsuits from the mandatory rule 11 provision of the bill and to leave it up to the discretion of the judges. I hope that some of the gentlemen on the other side will listen to what I am about to say because I do not think it has been said before. Last year, we passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to undo the Supreme Court decision in the Smith case. There are a number of other court decisions narrowing religious freedom which have not been undone and which people seek to try to challenge for reconsideration in court. For example, there are a number of decisions narrowing the Religious Accommodations Act which various religious groups want to litigate as well as to try to get this Congress to change. A memo that I have here from the Christian Legal Society says, for example, an attorney arguing a religious discrimination case and urging the courts to reject the reasoning in any of the existing cases could well be subject to the rule 11 sanctions as contained in this bill. The litigation route presently presents the only opportunity religious individuals will have to seek relief in employment discrimination cases. On this basis, and on the basis of the inclusion in the amendment to the Equal Access Act, the Christian Legal Society and the National Association of Evangelicals will support the amendment. I have here, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the gentleman from California will pay attention to this so we can comment on it, a letter from the Christian Legal Society and the National Association of Evangelicals in support of this amendment, and I am going to read excerpts from it. On behalf of the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom and the Public Affairs Office of the National Association of Evangelicals, we express our full support for any amendment that would exempt civil rights suits including those under the Equal Access Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act from this bill's purview. The history of religious liberty demonstrates that the powerless sometimes must look to the courts in cases that ``push the envelope'' of the law in order to vindicate our most precious freedoms in ways that existing law does not. We are concerned that mandatory sanctions will discourage the bringing of meritorious religious claims, not just frivolous ones. The first freedom of the first amendment is too precious to risk such a chilling effect. Any interest in judicial efficiency is far outweighed by our duty to keep open the doors of the Federal judiciary to such cases. Moreover, the preemptive effect of this bill is unnecessary in civil rights cases. Unlike commercial lawsuits, people rarely sue the government merely seeking a nuisance settlement. The few who do can still be dealt with under a discretionary rule 11. Federal judges have not shown that they need to have their judgment handcuffed in this way, at least not in civil rights litigation. For any and all of these reasons, we support your amendment to section 4 of H.R. 988. Thank you, * * *. Respectfully yours, Steven T. McFarland, Director, Center for Law and Religious Freedom of the Christian Legal Society, and Forest Montgomery, General Counsel, Office of Public Affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals. Mr. Chairman, I think this graphically shows why it is necessary to adopt this amendment if we are going to take our usual protective attitude toward religious liberty. I do not agree with this bill in general and I do not agree that we need to have mandatory rule 11 sanctions. But even many of those who do agree with that I would hope could recognize the distinction on civil rights and religious liberty cases. If someone is suing on a products liability case or a contract case or whatever, if you have a defendant with deep pockets, there are nuisance lawsuits, there are occasions where people will file frivolous claims, but if you are filing a constitutional claim on religious liberty, on religious accommodation, you are not going to have frivolous claims. No one is going to deliberately bring a frivolous religious liberty claim, rarely. We have not seen that problem in the courts and where we do, if we ever do, the nonmandatory, the discretionary rule 11 sanction could do. But to make a mandatory rule 11 sanction here when the religious liberty attorneys are going to have to be trying to persuade a court to change the existing precedent, to push the envelop is going to have a real chilling effect on that, and I do not think we need a real chilling effect on religious liberty. I would hope that there would be reconsideration on this amendment and that it would pass.

Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, sir, I think they do understand. We do this bill would change the present law and what the Christian Legal Society and the National Association of Evangelicals are saying and what other religious groups that I have been speaking to in the last few days have said to me, is that making mandatory rule 11 sanctions, making it mandatory would have a chilling effect in this area. It may have a chilling affect in other areas and we are not talking about them. We do not have a problem with frivolous suits in civil rights and other areas and they are looking at pushing the envelop and they are very concerned about that.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a truly remarkable organization, the Shorefront Jewish Community Council, as they celebrate their 20th anniversary. The council aids and assists over 13,000 people a year. The resettlement activities of the council have integrated scores of emigres from the former Soviet Union into American society and work force. The actions of the Shorefront Jewish Community Council have also contributed to a revitalization of many area neighborhoods. I would also like to congratulate the excellent work of the staff and volunteers of the council led by their president, Harry Schwartz, and executive director, Judah H. Klein. At a time of fiscal restraint, neighborhood organizations will play an ever-increasing role in aiding those in need. I am fortunate to have the Shorefront Jewish Community Council to work with residents of the Brooklyn shorefront, an area which I represent. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the Shorefront Jewish Community Council on this momentous occasion. I would also ask my colleagues to join with me in paying tribute to the honorees of the council's 20th anniversary brunch, Aileen R. Golden, who will be receiving the Advancement of Education Award, and Hyman Cohen as Man of the Decade.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Porter-Farr amendment which really is in contradistinction to some of the worst provisions of the Canady-Tauzin compensation bill. This bill constitutes a fundamental reinterpretation of the fifth amendment. Contrary to the gentleman from Virginia, it is the court's duty to interpret the law. It is our duty to change the law if we do not like the court's interpretation. But we make the law. We change the law. The court interprets the law. The courts have interpreted the fifth amendment in light of the common law over the centuries to mean that if the use of the land is precluded by the government, then that is a taking. If the value is diminished because some uses are precluded but substantial use is still permitted, that is not a taking. To interpret it otherwise, as this bill would do, would force the Government to compensate a landowner for any change, almost any change in value which would occur from almost anything Government does. It would establish a major entitlement program for landowners and establishes no money to pay for that entitlement. In effect, when an Army Corps of Engineers project has an effect on the value of nearby land, it would be up to the Secretary of the Army to pay for that. That would have priority over guns and tanks and missiles and readiness and troop payrolls, which makes no sense at all. And the bill is based on a fundamental misconception. The gentlewoman from Maryland referred to the misconception. Property rights under Anglo-Saxon law, Anglo-American law are not absolute. A great Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt, said, I quoted this last night but it deserves to be quoted again, ``Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate it to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.'' That that may sound, these intelligent words of President Theodore Roosevelt, radical today just shows how far some of our colleagues have gone from the common sense and public welfare conception of the Constitution. What this amendment would do, Mr. Chairman, is to say that we are going to vindicate landowners' rights by requiring that any agency, before undertaking any rule or action, must do an impact analysis to see what impact, if any, that will have on the value of land by necessity say it, almost any action government takes is going to raise the value of some land, decrease the value of other land. But this at least recognizes the need to address regulatory burdens on individual landowners. It is a positive step in support of private property owners, but without escalating the cost, the size or the inefficiency of government and without making it impossible for government to take almost any regulatory action, because that is what the underlying bill, as amended by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and the gentleman from Louisiana, [Mr. Tauzin] would do. Almost any regulatory action would be impossible because somewhere have to be compensated for and we all know there is no money for that. This amendment, based on President Reagan's executive order and on Senator Dole's bill, is an intelligent, common sense, down-the-middle approach to say we have to recognize and minimize the impact on property values, but we are not going to subordinate the public welfare to any change in value on somebody's land.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think the problem that is sought to be addressed by this amendment is very simple. This bill could have one of two purposes. Either it is an honest attempt to elicit more information about the effects of a rule, of a major rule before that rule is effective, analogous to the environmental impact statement in environmental law, or it is a disingenuous attempt to thwart all Federal rulemaking because of a desire to let corporations not have to worry about new Federal rules because of a feeling that there are enough or too many Federal rules. We do not want to see anymore, so let us bog down all the new Federal rules, the proposed ones, in litigation, let us bog them down in impact analysis. Let us make every rule have to have an impact analysis and then tie it up in litigation. It is one or the other. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman's amendment would make it clear that it is the former and not the latter. Because then you would have a clear guideline, a very modest guideline, one quarter. The chairman said that the reason we had to get away from the $100 million of President Ford and President Reagan is because the hue and cry of the business community was that that was too high or too low, that too many, that too much escaped it. That you did not have enough analysis. But that is now $300 to $400 million. What the gentleman's amendment is proposing is a rule of $100 million which is a quarter of what it was under President Ford, because President Ford's $100 million is today worth $300 to $400 million. So we are reducing it by 75 percent. That seems adequate. But second of all, let us look at the other key to the definition. A major rule would be defined as something that seems likely to result in a major increase in cost or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, local governments or geographic regions. What does that mean? What is a geographic region? The South Bronx? The entire State of New York? New York City? If a rule has a particular impact only on the South Bronx, do you need an impact analysis that is going to cost $1\1/2\ million or $2 million for the entire country? What does that mean? I will tell you what it means, about 5 years of lawsuits on that question. What does a major increase in cost or prices mean? Does that mean a 15-percent price increase? Does it mean a 5-cent increase in a $1 item, a 5-cent increase in a 15-cent item. I tell you what it means. It means 5 years of high-priced litigation on that question. You then say, it is a major rule if it seems likely to result in significant adverse effects on competition, employment, et cetera, et cetera. What does significant adverse affects mean? I will tell you what it means. Five years of high-priced litigation is what it means. Mr. Chairman, if we are seeking to bog down any Federal agency and rulemaking, if we are seeking to enable companies to litigate everything and to tie it up in litigation forever, then this is a fine provision. But if this is an honest bill, if we want major rules that have real impacts to be subject to impact analysis, then the gentleman's amendment solves the problem, a $100 million clear rule, a heck of a lot less than President Reagan's and President Ford's threshold, because in their day it is $300 to $400 million in today's dollars, and the ability of the OMB director when something is unanticipated to reach down and say, that is a major rule even though it is only $25 million or some other figure under $100 million. That is enough. To do anything more is to greatly increase the risk of tremendous litigation on every question, to almost beg for it. Open- ended phrases once gone into practice to be interpreted by the courts would sweep an enormous number of regulations that do not warrant and could not conceivably profit from a full-blown cost-benefit analysis into this bill, and it would lead to endless litigation. Again, Mr. Chairman, this amendment will answer, and how the majority, frankly, determines, this amendment will answer one question: what is the intent of this bill. Is it an honest attempt to deal with major rules and give it a regulatory analysis, in which case we will see a yes vote on this amendment, or is it a disingenuous attempt?

Mr. NADLER. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, is it a disingenuous attempt to block most Federal rulemaking and to give major corporations subject to Federal rulemaking the ability to tie anything they do not like up in litigation for years by putting into the language of the bill such vague, indeterminate language as to invite litigation? Mr. Chairman, I submit the answer, if we see the majority vote against this amendment, we will know the answer to that question.

Mr. NADLER. Would not the gentleman say that if it was unintended and unanticipated, this impact on some new industry, by definition ``unanticipated'' means no one foresaw it. The escape valve is not the language that the gentleman's amendment repeals. The escape valve is the ability to go to OMB and say, hey, we have got this problem. How about calling this a major rule because we did not, you did now?

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. It is a truly radical piece of legislation and goes against the entire thrust of the constitutional history of the United States Government for the last 200 years. Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court has said that in construing the takings provision of the fifth amendment, the court has defined that, ``Elimination of the most profitable use of the property is not a taking.'' It has stated that, ``A reduction of property value occasioned by government regulation must generally be severe or total for there to be a taking; a mere diminution in the value of property, however serious, is insufficient to demonstrate a taking.'' It is not a taking if ``the property owner retains some viable use of the property (as measured by the owner's reasonable investment backed expectations).'' Those are all from the Supreme Court. Why? Why have the courts consistently read the fifth amendment this way? The answer is because to read it any other way, to read it the way this bill would read it, would totally undermine the ability of the Federal Government, or if applied to local government, of local governments, to protect the general welfare. The Federal Government was instituted to protect the general welfare. With this bill, Mr. Chairman, we say that if the Federal Government wants to protect the air or the water or any other environmental aspect, or anything else, in a way that imposes any kind of burden on the piece of property, then it may not do so unless it will compensate for the change in value of that property, which would be infinite, almost infinite. I note that this bill does not provide, and the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] says it has no fiscal impact because the agency would have to pay from its own money. How could an agency pay from its own money when any action that may impose a burden on the property may impose it on hundreds or thousands or millions unpredictably? The philosophy of this legislation is radical because it says that private property is absolute and that the rights of the public are greatly subordinate. Teddy Roosevelt said to the contrary. President Roosevelt, the great Republican President, said, ``Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate it to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.'' I have carried this around in my pocket for the last 12 years, waiting for an appropriate occasion to read it, and this is the appropriate occasion, to remind the people here that the proper philosophy of government is that private property is not absolute. The right of the public ultimately is superior, and that to legislate this bill would say that the public welfare has no bearing in this country.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to protest the mean-spirited and draconian rescissions that have been reported out of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and the VA/HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittees. An excellent statement released yesterday by ACT-UP expresses quite directly the severity of these cuts. Two House Subcommittees voted to rescind funding for AIDS programs that is already in the pipeline. The VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee voted to eliminate all $188 million allocated for HOPWA, the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS Program, eliminate all 3,000 Section 8 rental assistance vouchers set-aside for HIV-positive people, and cut $2.7 billion in general Section 8 vouchers. The Labor/HHS Appropriations Subcommittee cut $13 million from the Ryan White CARE Act, which pays for medical care and services for people with HIV, and cut $23 million from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's HIV prevention program. The HUD funding cuts alone mean that New York City will lose $41.7 million, Upstate New York $2.2 million and Long Island $1.2 million. In New York City, 700 units now housing over 1,000 people with AIDS and HIV disease and their family members will be lost. Mr. Speaker, these severe slashes in housing funding will touch a wide range of American people--families, children, and seniors--but perhaps the most striking examples of heartlessness is putting sick and dying people out on the streets. It is, Mr. Speaker, nothing but immoral. I am absolutely appalled at the insensitivity to human life that I have seen over the past 50 or so days here in the Congress. We must put an end to this slashing and burning of America's middle and low-income people and families, and of the most needy members of our society. For more than a decade, the devastation of the AIDS pandemic has affected every American community and has touched most Americans in some way personally. AIDS cuts across gender, ethnic, racial, and socio-economic lines. The rate of increased infection is alarming. Ryan White CARE funding is essential for AIDS service providers to keep pace with the pandemic to continue and provide effective and cost-efficient HIV-related medical and social services. Mr. Speaker, according to a recent and very disturbing, New York Times article, AIDS has become the leading cause of death among all Americans aged 25 to 44 . . . this number has surpassed unintentional injury, which dropped to second place in this age group. Since AIDS was first identified in the early 1980's, more than 440,000 cases have been documented and more than 250,000 AIDS-related deaths have resulted in the United States. More than 1 million people in the United States are believed to be HIV-positive, but have not yet contracted AIDS. The Congressional district I represent in New York City is among the hardest hit by AIDS. With over 65,000 cases of AIDS--the highest number of any city in the country--in fact, more than 40,000 more cases than the next highest city, New York City has been the city most affected. Additionally, New York State, has approximately 20 percent of the Nation's AIDS cases, 81,386 cases. Ryan White funding is absolutely vital to many New Yorkers living with HIV/AIDS. But the AIDS crisis goes far beyond New York--Americans in communities across the Nation have felt the effects of AIDS in some way. Mr. Speaker, the impact of the AIDS epidemic is felt by everyone, from all walks of life. As the number of people living with HIV and AIDS continues to rise and access to private health care remains an obstacle to treatment, Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Act and Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS funds are more critical than ever. Slashing these programs will interrupt early intervention and health care to thousands of Americans living with AIDS and will merely escalate the pain and suffering that millions of people with AIDS experience. I call on my good colleagues in Congress to unite against these immoral attacks by the big bad wolf. If we are not careful they will come and huff and puff and blow our houses down. We can not allow our Nation's seniors, children, families and people with AIDS to be put out in the streets. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to take a leadership role and join me in speaking out and working to oppose these Draconian, and mean- spirited cuts.