Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, last year the Bush administration misled and systematically lied to the American people and to this Congress about the reasons why it said it was necessary to go into war with Iraq. We know that what they said about weapons of mass destruction, about nuclear weapons, about the biological weapons, we know all this was not true. The only question now is when they knew it was not true. We now learn, Mr. Speaker, that the Bush administration misled this Congress deliberately and knowingly misled this Congress as to the cost of the Medicare bill by over $140 billion. We know that they threatened the actuary with being fired if he gave truthful information to Congress. Mr. Speaker, we depend on truthful information to have democracy. Martha Stewart faces jail time for lying to the government. When are we going to hold this administration accountable for lying to the American people and to this institution so that we cannot do our work properly because we are working on false information? When are we going to appoint an independent counsel to begin to demand honesty so that we can represent the American people properly?

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I support commending our troops, but I believe the war with Iraq did not make the United States safer. We know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and no connection to al Qaeda which poses the real threat to the safety of the American people. We know that the war in Iraq diverted resources from the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban, which is staging a resurgence in Afghanistan today. We know that the war in Iraq alienated our allies whose help and intelligence we need to fight the real threat, the Islamic terrorists. We know that the war against Iraq makes it much harder to take action, perhaps military action, if necessary, to deal with the very real potential threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. After the administration misled this House, misled the American people, and misled the world about the nonexistent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, who will believe us if we need to act against the real nuclear threat from Iran? I believe this war made us less safe because it dealt with a phantom threat, not the real threat. It diverted resources from the real threat. This resolution is good in commending our troops, but untruthful in saying the war against Iraq made us safer. Therefore, I cannot vote for it.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I rise today to honor Camp Ramah in the Berkshires as the Ramah family celebrates its 40th anniversary. Camp Ramah provides our community's youngsters a unique opportunity to interweave exposure to the beautiful countryside of the Berkshires with education in Jewish values and practice. The benefit of such experience is precious, and I commend Camp Ramah's continued efforts to extend that benefit to all children, regardless of economic limitations. The future of our community depends upon programs and experiences like those provided by Camp Ramah, which has a long history of cultivating knowledge and leadership in our community's youth. As Camp Ramah prepares to open its doors for the 40th time, I would like to commend those special honorees, Dr. Charles and Barbara Mann and Rabbi Paul and Martha Resnick, who have done so much for the camp and the values that it embodies. It is from teachers like Mr. Mann and Rabbi Resnick that the leaders of tomorrow gain the encouragement, enrichment, and values that they will need to make our future the best it can be. I send my warmest congratulations to the honorees, and thank them for their years of service. I wish Camp Ramah's extended family of friends and supporters a wonderful evening of entertainment and celebration, and I join you in wishing for the camp 40 more successful years.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. The World War II internment of American citizens of Japanese, German and Italian ancestry for no reason other than their heritage is a disgraceful blot on the history of this Nation and on our commitment to freedom and equality. Sometimes, in times of panic and insecurity, we have forgotten what is best and most admired about our Nation and we have done things which in retrospect and with cooler heads we have come to realize were both unnecessary and unjust. This unfortunate history includes the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, the Espionage Act of 1917, the Smith Act of 1940, the Japanese, German and Italian internments, the McCarthy depredations of the early Cold War years, the COINTELPRO operations of the FBI, and some of what is going on today. We are regrettably going through another period of fear and insecurity due to the very real threat of terrorism. We must not give in to fear and we must not repeat the sin of trampling civil liberties in ways that purport to, but do not even, add to our own security. But I fear we are yet again doing just that. There is no greater way to honor those many loyal Americans who suffered injustices during World War II than to rededicate ourselves to fighting for the principles that this history teaches, to remembering this history, to passing this resolution but to try to avoid repeating this history as I fear we are doing in some of the things that are going on in this time of insecurity today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), the sponsor of the resolution.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Hawaii. (Mr. CASE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, over 60 years ago, at a time of panic and insecurity, this country committed a great wrong against people of Japanese, Italian and German background. Several years ago, the United States apologized for this, voted monetary compensation, and today we are passing a resolution supporting the goal of recognizing a day of national remembrance to increase public awareness of these events. It is right and fitting that we should do this, and we should pass this resolution. I hope and I pray that as we increase public awareness of these events, we will learn from it, so that we do not repeat the same kind of actions as we have done in the past at times of insecurity and panic. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Actors' Equity Association, in honor of its 90 years of contributions to the American theater. Since 1913, Actors' Equity Association has fought for better wages, working conditions, and pension and health benefits for actors and stage managers. Equity has fostered and stimulated the art of live theater and contributed to the health of the American theatrical community. In particular, Actors' Equity plays an important role in the Broadway industry, in the heart of my district, which contributes $4 billion annually to the economy of New York City and depends greatly on the talent and professionalism of Equity's members. Throughout Actors' Equity's distinguished history, it has built a proud tradition of contributing to the overall good of our society and community by: fighting against segregation, blacklisting and discrimination; supporting funding for the arts; and spearheading fundraising for charities such as Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS. In addition, in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City, Equity came together with other theatrical unions to keep Broadway shows up and running, helping New York City recover. The hard work and talent of the more than 45,000 members of Actors' Equity Association contribute to the arts and to their communities in cities and theaters across the country. Actors' Equity Association is committed to ensuring these members are treated with dignity and respect, and that the art of live theater continues to flourish. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to applaud Equity's ongoing efforts to uphold the highest artistic standards of live theater in the United States. I commend Actor's Equity for all of its good work and offer my sincerest congratulations upon reaching this milestone.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I understand, and I am not an expert in probate or estate law, but I do understand that as the fetus gets older, our law gives it more recognition. In fact, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade said in the first trimester the interest of the woman and her choice completely prevails, you cannot regulate abortion. In the second trimester there is more of an interest, and, therefore, you can regulate; and in the third trimester after viability, you can prohibit abortion. That is in Roe v. Wade because it recognizes that there is more interest that attaches. I do not deny that, and exactly how much attaches and so forth we can debate in a lot of contexts. What I am saying is that the definition of the fetus or the embryo as a human being, as a person, for purposes of law in all respects, which is what this bill would do, we have never done. We do not do now, we have never done, and in my opinion we should not because it is one conception. It is a defensible proposition, but it is not a proposition that many people and religions agree with, and it is not a proposition that we should impose by Congress pro or con. I urge adoption of the substitute, not the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman, first of all, I congratulate him for endorsing the right to choose. But second of all, he talked about the woman who has chosen to bear her pregnancy to term, to have a child, and an assault which destroys her fetus or damages her fetus is an assault on her right to choose, and indeed it is. He is entirely right. That is why the substitute makes the assault on her fetus a separate crime with a separate penalty against her because it is indeed an assault on her right to choose to carry that pregnancy to term, and she is the damaged party because she has lost her right to carry the pregnancy to term. She has lost her right to bear a child, and that is why in the substitute we make it an additional crime against her. The bill, of course, makes it a separate crime against the fetus, and that is the question here. Also, the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) quoted Exodus 21:22. He said it was 22:22, but it is 21:22. He misquoted what it said. Before I read it, let me be very clear: I did not raise this reference to the Bible because I think we ought to enact Biblical or religious law in this Chamber, far from it, but simply to show it has always been regarded, our civilization generally has regarded back to Biblical times the fetus as not having the status of a separate person. Exodus 21:22 reads as follows: ``If men strive and hurt a woman with child so that her fruit depart from her,'' in other words, she has a miscarriage, they cause the destruction of the fetus, ``and yet no mischief follow, he shall be surely punished and he shall pay as the judges determine,'' monetary compensation. ``And if any mischief follow, then they shall give life for life.'' Now, I am not sure what the Bible means by ``mischief.'' I have an interpretation here from a rabbinical source that says it means if she dies. But, in any event, if she does not die, if mischief does not follow, if she has a miscarriage, monetary compensation. It is only when mischief follows, when she dies, that he is guilty of a capital crime. That is precisely because at least the Bible did not consider the fetus to be a person for whose killing it is a capital crime, as killing a born person is. Again, I cite this not because we are bound in enacting civil law to enact Biblical law, we are not, obviously, but simply to show, as I mentioned earlier, this bill, by trying to establish the fetus as a separate person for legal purposes, is a radical departure not only from Anglo-American legal traditions, but from all of Western legal traditions going way back to the Bible. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the distinguished gentleman from Illinois for the passion he brings to this discussion, but more than that, for the clarity and honesty he brings to this discussion, for he has swept away much of the rhetoric and much of the underbrush which impedes a clear view of this and defined the real issue. This is a bill about abortion, as he quite clearly recognizes. Both the bill and the substitute have the same practical impact. They both define two crimes. They both define the same penalties. They both have the same deterrent effect. That is not the issue, as he recognizes. The bill defines the fetus as a person from the moment of conception. The substitute does not recognize the fetus as a person, for legal purposes, from the moment of conception. That is the difference, and that is the core of the abortion debate, as the distinguished gentleman recognizes. The people who believe abortion to be murder believe a fetus, a zygote, a blastocyst is a person, a full human person with full and equal and legal rights from the moment of conception. We do not. We do not use the euphemism ``a right to choose'' as a euphemism for abortion. We support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion if she wishes. We support a woman's right to bear a pregnancy to term if she wishes. That is why we say we support the right to choose. Abortion is clearly troubling emotionally and intellectually to many people. I, for one, and I can only speak personally, would find an abortion of a 9-month pregnant fetus, that is to say, a 9-month-old fetus, a horror, and I believe it is, in fact, illegal, except to save the life of the mother. On the other hand, I do not believe that a two- cell zygote after conception is a human being. I do not believe that. I believe that it has the potential. It obviously has the potential to become a human being, but it is simply two cells, and I have no compunction about an abortion of a group of cells. I do not believe it to be a human being. That question, whether a small clump of cells or an embryo is a human being or not, is not a question that we are ever going to agree on. The chairman said the abortion debate is going to be with us forever, and I think he may be right, certainly a long time. We are not going to disagree on that question. The difference is I respect everyone's right to their opinion, whether informed by physiology, by religion, by morality, by their concept of morality, to make that decision for themselves as to how they regard a blastocyst or a zygote. Some religions declare it a human; some religions say no. I do not think it is the job of Congress to dictate to people how to make that very personal, moral decision. I believe that decision is one which must be left to a woman. If a woman says that, to me, as the woman, the embryo at early stage of development is a human being, and I will not have an abortion even if it risks my life, I will respect that decision. She is entitled to it. I would not support Congress coming in and saying we will save her life despite her will if she is competent because we do not agree with her moral decision. On the other hand, if she says, my moral decision is that I do not believe an early embryo or fetus is a human being and I want to have an abortion, that is her decision. I will not want Congress or the State legislature or the President to say, you are wrong morally, my moral conviction is superior to yours, and therefore, I will use the power of the State, the power of compulsion to put my moral conviction over yours. That is the debate here. This bill is mostly a sham. The distinguished gentleman from Illinois takes the sham away and says what is really at stake, what is really the issue, and the real issue is are we going to say, which we have never said before, we had that Biblical passage which I brought, as I said before, I do not think Congress ought to enact Biblical or religious law into civil law, but I brought it to show that in the Biblical times they did not regard a fetus as a person, because if you killed the fetus, you had monetary compensations. If the woman died, there was a capital punishment because the fetus is not regarded as a full person. That brought back, we have not regarded an Anglo-Saxon law, a Roman law up until now, a fetus as a full person. Now, because of the abortion debate that erupted 30 years or so ago, the last 30 years, people have tried to change the law to say that we should give legal recognition to the assertion that a fetus or an embryo from the moment of conception is a person for legal purposes. We do not agree with that. This bill would do that. Therefore, we are opposed to this bill. Some people have that opinion. Some people have that conviction. I respect the conviction. Some religions say so. I respect that. Others disagree. We should not use the power of law to impose that opinion, that theological opinion, that physiological opinion, that moral opinion on people who do not share it and wish to have abortions or other acts that may flow from that. That is the distinction here, and this bill is an abortion bill despite not what the gentleman from Illinois said, but some other people said, because, as I said before, the consequences of the defining a second crime, the substitute would do, giving a severe penalty, giving additional penalties, are the same in the bill and the substitute. The difference is the legal underpinning, and the only reason we care about the legal underpinning is because of what it says about the key distinction underneath the legal right to an abortion and the underpinning for Roe v. Wade.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will read into the Record some letters that we have here. This bill has been represented as a bill on family violence. We have here a letter in opposition to the bill and in support of the Lofgren substitute from the Family Violence Prevention Fund. It says: ``If Congress is serious about stopping domestic violence against pregnant women and helping women and children who are victims, Members will quickly pass the Domestic Violence Screening, Treatment and Prevention Act, H.R. 1267.'' The American Association of University Women is opposed to this bill. The National Women's Law Center is opposed to this bill. The National Council of Jewish Women is opposed to this bill in which they say that ``this bill defines an unborn child as a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development. For the first time, it gives separate legal protection to a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus and mandates penalties for harm to an unborn child equal to those mandated for harm to the woman herself. This legal definition will set a precedent that the anti-choice movement can exploit in its ongoing efforts to equate abortion with murder. And it would establish a foundation on which to build a case that the rights of fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses are apart from and superior to the rights of the women in whose bodies they develop. ``The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a sham designed to exploit the understandable public sympathy for a woman who loses her pregnancy or her life to violence in order to promote an agenda by which women will in fact lose control of their bodies to the State.'' That is from the National Council of Jewish Women. The National Abortion Federation, the Religious Coalition of Reproductive Choice, the American Civil Liberties Union, NARAL, People for the American Way, the National Organization for Women, all of these groups are concerned either about abortion rights, about reproductive rights, about women's rights, about domestic violence; and they are all opposed to this bill. Juley Fulcher of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which is the group that for the last 25 years has led the fight for antidomestic violence legislation in the States and in the Congress, testified against this bill in our committee, and I commend her testimony to my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I will insert all of these letters into the Record at this time. Family Violence Prevention Fund, Washington, DC, January, 27, 2004. Hon. Jerrold Nadler, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Nadler: On behalf of the Family Violence Prevention Fund, I am writing to express concern about the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, H.R. 1997, passed by the House Judiciary Committee on January 21. We are deeply disappointed that some are promoting this bill as a way to end domestic violence, when better and more direct measures to stop family violence languish in Congress year after year. Members of Congress who want to stop abuse will put their energy into passing the prevention and intervention measures that offer great promise to stop violence before it starts. The murder of Laci Peterson was an unspeakable tragedy, but many laws designed as quick fixes have caused great harm. For example, mandatory domestic violence health reporting laws deter women from seeking the medical help they need. We need to step back and consider what actually works. Our goal must be to stop violence against all women, regardless of whether they are pregnant. If Congress is serious about stopping domestic violence against pregnant women and helping women and children who are victims, Members will quickly pass the Domestic Violence Screening, Treatment and Prevention Act, H.R. 1267. this essential bill would train health care providers to routinely screen female patients for a lifetime history of abuse and give women access to critical domestic violence services when abuse is identified. Introduced in the House in March of 2003 by Representative Lois Capps (D-CA) and Steven LaTourette (R- OH), this bill has the potential to prevent tragedies by helping victims before violence escalates. We also urge Congress to fully fund all Violence Against Women Act programs and support legislation that would actually prevent domestic violence before it begins. Domestic violence prevention legislation should include services for children who are exposed to abuse, programs that support young families at risk of violence, and efforts to teach young men and boys how to develop healthy, non-violent relationships. Such legislation would do much more to stem the tide of domestic violence than the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Finally, we wish to thank you for your continued leadership and support on this issue. As an advocate in Congress and as one of our Founding Fathers, you truly make a difference in the movement to end violence against women and children. If we can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Kiersten Stewart in our Washington, D.C. office at 202-682- 1212. Sincerely, Esta Soler, President, Family Violence Prevention Fund.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida mentions various polling data that large majorities of people who are polled say that someone who attacks the woman and harms the fetus, that there are two separate crimes here. There is no dispute on that point. We agree with that. There are two separate crimes. The substitute as well as the bill in chief make it two separate crimes. That is not at issue. What is at issue is who is the victim. The substitute says it is a separate crime against the woman. Two crimes, two punishments for separate crimes against the same victim. The bill says two victims. That is the distinction here. Are there two crimes? Yes, we say. Yes, they say. Are there two victims? Yes, they say from a legal point of view. No, we say, she is the victim of a second crime because the law does not recognize the fetus as a full person. That is what this bill seeks to do. So it is not a question of two separate slaps on the wrist. We ought to punish the crime severely. The substitute punishes the crime as severely, in some cases more severely than does the bill. The question is do you recognize one victim or two victims, because there are legal consequences, there are juridical consequences, there are consequences of undermining Roe v. Wade and the right to choose based on whether you say this fetus is a person for legal purposes or simply that you say the woman is a victim twice and we will punish it appropriately. That is the question, not whether there are two crimes. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Iowa just hit the nail on the head. He said the purpose of this bill is to recognize that there are two victims, two people involved in this. That is exactly the point of this bill, and that is exactly why we should not pass this bill without the Lofgren substitute. I am glad the previous speaker and some of the other speakers on the other side stripped away the false rhetoric on this bill. This bill is not about punishing an assault on a fetus separately; the substitute as well as the bill does that. This is not about giving it an additional punishment; the substitute as well as the bill does that. This is about saying that there are two victims, not one victim; that the fetus or the embryo or the zygote, depending on the status of the pregnancy, is a separate legal person. That is the point of the bill. That is why we must have the substitute, why we cannot agree to the bill, because the whole point of the bill is to establish legally separate fetal personhood, which would undermine the entire rationale of Roe v. Wade and undermine a woman's right to choose, because if a fetus is a separate legal person, how can she choose to terminate the pregnancy? This is revolutionary notion going way back to Biblical law. If we look at the original Five Books of Moses, it says very plainly if you assault a woman and she dies, you should be put to death. And if you assault a woman and she miscarries, you shall pay her monetary compensation. In other words, by killing the fetus, you have damaged an interest of the woman for which she is due compensation, but you have not committed murder as you have if you kill the born person, the woman. So we have never in our history recognized a fetus as a separate legal person. The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade specifically says we have never recognized a fetus as a separate person. If we were to do so, then we would get into the 14th amendment question that you cannot deprive a person of life, or liberty or process, without due process of law; and that is the purpose of this bill. That is the purpose of similar bills in the State legislatures, I suspect, to give underpinning to a future Supreme Court majority to say that we recognize a fetus as a person within the meaning of the 14th amendment and, therefore, abortion is murder and, therefore, Roe v. Wade is overruled and, therefore, States have no right to legalize murder and you would need a constitutional amendment to permit abortions in this country. That is the real point of this bill. And strip away all the disingenuous rhetoric about everything else, because everything else we agree on. We agree that there ought to be an additional penalty if you harm the fetus when you assault a woman. We agree that it should be a separate additional crime. The only question here between the bill and the substitute is should the separate additional crime for harming the fetus be a crime against the woman as we say, an additional separate crime against a woman deserving an additional separate penalty? Or should it be an additional crime against a second person, the fetus being recognized as a person? That is the issue in this bill and this substitute. To say that it is not and to quarry the abortion debate is quite simply disingenuous. That is why the bill was introduced. That is why they are pushing it. It is why we are opposing it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.