Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Bentsen. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman very much for his response. Yes, indeed it does satisfy the inquiry. I thank the gentleman for his assistance in clarifying the intent of the legislation and of the Congress in regard to this matter. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this bill, which has many good features, unfortunately is going through this House in great haste. Very few people have had the opportunity to read it, since I do not even know how many copies are in print. One of the problems with that, one of the problems with the fact that the bill was not printed until an hour or two ago is that people can slip things into this bill with other people not knowing about them. There is in my district a project, a huge boondoggle which wants to waste a few hundred million dollars. We have had language in every appropriations bill in this House for the last 5 years saying no funds herein appropriated should be spent on this boondoggle. The Porkbusters Coalition, headed by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) have said this is the worst project. NBC TV featured it on Fleecing of America, but it is a project Donald Trump wants because it will put money in his pocket. It puts more money in his pocket. It will spend $300 million to move a highway we just finished rehabbing for $90 million, solely for the purpose of getting it out of the way of sightlines of Mr. Trump's new buildings. We oppose this. Suddenly there is money in this bill for this project. It appeared in it last night. We just found out about it. It was put there by a Congresswoman whose district comes nowhere closer than 75 miles, and no one knew this. No one can comment on it. The chairman tells me the mayor supports it. That is not my information, but who can check it in this time? This is the wrong way to proceed. I hope that this money is not completely wasted.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of the Centennial of the oldest social work training program in the nation, I hereby offer congratulations to the Columbia University School of Social Work. Evolving from a summer program organized by the Charity Organization Society in New York, the school of Social Work has a long and distinguished history of pioneering research, informed advocacy and exceptional professional training. It is a remarkable accomplishment that social workers have played key roles in every major social reform movement, from settlement houses to labor reform, to the New Deal, to civil rights and voter registration. Many of the things we take for granted today--Social Security, child labor laws, the minimum wage, the 40-hour work week, Medicare--came about because social workers saw injustice, acted, and inspired others. Throughout the century Columbia's faculty, students and alumni have worked tirelessly to address both the causes and symptoms of our most pressing social problems. National movements, such as the White House Conference on Children and the National Urban League, have emerged from projects undertaken by the School's faculty and administrators in cooperation with professional and community organizations. The entire nation has benefitted from the work of people like Eveline Burns (Social Security); Mitchell I. Ginsberg (Head Start); Richard Cloward (welfare rights and voter registration); Alfred Kahn and Sheila B. Kamerman (cross-national studies of social services) and David Fanshel (children in foster care). As your School, and indeed the social work profession, move into their second centuries, they will be challenged to respond to social change, new social problems, family change, and evolving societal commitments. Now more than ever, we will need well-trained and dedicated social workers to work with troubled children and families, organize communities for change, conduct cutting-edge research, administer social programs, and alleviate society's most intractable problems. It is with appreciation and admiration that I extend my best wishes to the Columbia School of Social Work on its Centennial and look forward to its future activity and achievement.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this legislation because it is unnecessary, costly, and may be designed to lead the Congress to take more radical steps than are necessary to fix the relatively small and manageable problem facing Social Security. Yesterday, the Social Security trustees revised their economic projections to show that Social Security is actually in better shape than they thought. The Trust Fund will be solvent through the year 2029. The trustees pushed back the projected insolvency date by 3 years and included other corrections to their extremely low projections of the past. In fact, the trustees yesterday admitted that there would be almost $1 trillion more money in the system in 2020 than they said there would be last year, and they admitted that the long-term shortfall in the system is less than 2.2 percent of taxable payroll. These revisions, however, are still overly pessimistic because they do not include the latest adjustments to the Consumer Price Index. They assume a long-term growth rate of only 1.3 percent, despite recent growth rates averaging 3 percent and 3.8 percent last year, and they assume that unemployment can never be below 6 percent, even though it has been about 4.5 percent for the last couple of years. So not only is the problem facing Social Security small and manageable, but it is even smaller and more manageable than the trustees admit. It appears that the shortfall can be dealt with without raising the retirement age, without cutting benefits, and without radically changing the system with risky privatization schemes. While I respect the desire to create a bipartisan body to help devise a comprehensive solution, I do not think we need a new blue ribbon commission to come between the American people and its elected representatives, after the last one we had 2 years ago. A national dialogue is already under way. We should let the system work, have the appropriate hearings and markups, and listen to our constituents, not some artificial panel of experts. I also have more than a little suspicion that the unstated purpose of this resolution is to create a commission that will give an official blessing to the real and, I believe, pernicious and destructive goal of the exercise: Privatizing the Social Security system and shifting all of the risk from the government's budget to the shoulders of individuals, again risking abject poverty in old age. I hope that this is not the case. I hope that what is coming here is not a step to whipping up hysteria based on the false notion that the Social Security system is in imminent crisis, that it is going bankrupt, then hiding behind a commission and coming out with a radical scheme to destabilize the whole system. Mr. Speaker, we should have faith that the ongoing debate will yield the information we need to forge sound legislation to enable Social Security to meet the challenges of the next century. We should also take steps to ensure the debate starts with a sound assessment of the problems facing Social Security, a small, manageable problem; a problem of less than 2.2 percent of taxable payroll; a problem that can be solved without shifting the risks from the budget of the Government of the United States to the shoulders of individuals and can be solved without increasing the retirement age, without reducing COLAs and without reducing benefits. It can be solved in fairly easy ways that we do not see in the public debate. I distrust the composition of the commission. One final thing: It is an outrage, when we are facing a shortfall in the Social Security system, this bill calls for financing the commission by taking money away from the trust fund and giving it to the commission. Leave the money in the trust fund for the beneficiaries.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I represent New York City, the epicenter of the AIDS epidemic in this country. We have seen dramatic reductions in the rate of transmission of AIDS in those areas where we have needle exchange programs. Our experience has changed the minds of many former opponents as a result of what they have seen. This bill we have today is a death sentence for many people in this country. The evidence is clear and convincing and irrefutable, needle exchange programs save lives. The Federal Government's top scientists at the National Academy of Sciences, the National Commission on AIDS, the American Medical Association, the National Institutes of Health, the General Accounting Office all tell us there is conclusive proof that needle exchange programs save lives, prevent the spread of AIDS and do not encourage drug use. With scientific proof in hand that needle exchange saves lives, the question before us today is does this House wish to cause people to suffer and die rather than to let science and medicine slow the spread of this deadly disease? The numbers are shocking. Every day 33 people, including drug users, their sex partners and their children, become infected with the AIDS virus because of intravenous drug use. Forty percent of all new infections in the U.S. result from the use of contaminated needles. For women and children, 75 percent. But needle exchange programs prevent the spread and without any increase in IV drug use. In fact, studies show that IV drug use declines as a result of needle exchange because needle exchange programs encourage drug users to seek treatment. If we have the ability to help those who want and need this assistance, why would we not? Because it sends a message? Dead and dying children send a worse message. Defeat this deadly, deadly bill. Mr. Speaker, I represent N.Y.C., the epicenter of the AIDS epidemic in this country. We have seen dramatic reductions in the rate of transmission of AIDS in those areas where we have needle exchange programs. Our experience has changed the minds of many former opponents, of needle exchange programs. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a death sentence for many people, in this country. The evidence is clear and convincing, needle exchange programs save lives! The federal government's top scientists, as well as the National Academy of Sciences, the National Commission on AIDS, AMA, Nat'l Acad. of Sciences, the National Institutes of Health, and the General Accounting Office, all tell us there is conclusive proof that needle exchange programs prevent the spread of AIDS, and do not encourage drug use. With scientific proof in hand that needle exchange saves lives-- the question before us is does this House wish to cause people to suffer and die rather than to let science and medicine slow down the spread of this deadly disease. Mr. Speaker, the numbers are shocking. Every day, 33 people-- including drug users, their sex partners and their children--children become infected with the AIDS virus as a result of intravenous drug use. Forty percent of all new infections in the U.S. result from the use of contaminated needles; for women and children, that figure is 75 percent. But needle exchange programs prevent this spread--and without any increase in IV drug use. In fact, studies show that IV drug use declines as a result of needle exchange, because needle exchange programs encourage drug users to seek treatment. If we have the ability and resources to help those who want and need assistance and save them and their children from a slow and painful death then why not do so? Because it sends a message? Dead and dying children send a worse message. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that any member of this House would wish greater spread of the AIDS epidemic. There is no real controversy here--it is a fact that needle exchange saves lives. To ban federal funds for these programs would bring certain death to thousands. Mr. Speaker, we have to face reality. People are using drugs intravenously already. If by providing clean needles, we reduce their use of infected needles, then we reduce the transmission of AIDS. We know this. Study after study shows this. I urge my colleagues to choose life! Choose life over death! Choose life over demagoguery! Reject this deadly bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would add that I hope everyone votes for this amendment. It seems to me this is one of the very few amendments for which the arguments are all on one side. I urge all Members to vote for it.

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment along with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot). As my colleagues know, this bill would permit cameras into Federal district courts at the judge's discretion. In the past, I have been very concerned, and I have opposed allowing cameras into trial courts because I feared it might intimidate witnesses. It is already intimidating enough for someone who witnesses an accident or a crime, and then sees an appeal on television that the police ask anyone who has seen this or has information please come forward. It is intimidating enough for such a person who knows that if they come forward they may well be asked to testify in court; they may well be subject to cross-examination by an attorney whose job it is to impeach their credibility as a witness, and to make them look foolish. In effect, that is a pretty intimidating prospect. It is bad enough even if you are only going to be subject to that cross-examination in front of 30 people in the courtroom. But to be subject to that cross-examination perhaps in front of all your relatives, and friends, and wife, and children, and neighbors might be even more intimidating. I have always feared that this might lead to some witnesses not coming forward. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) suggested a way out of this dilemma, and I am delighted to join him in offering this amendment. He suggested, and what this amendment does is to say that where you are having cameras in the courtroom in a trial court, any witness other than a party to the action may at his or her request have his face and voice distorted so you cannot tell whose face it is, and you cannot recognize the voice. You can still hear what he is saying on the television so that, yes, this person's name will be known; yes, you can photograph him walking in or out of the courtroom, but he is not, he will have less fear of being made to look foolish in front of his friends on television by the opposing attorney. This is not the most important thing in the world, but I suspect very much that there are witnesses in this world who will come forward if this is the procedure who might not otherwise come forward if this is not the procedure. Again, you have cameras in the courtroom. This does not take that away. But it simply allows a witness at the witness' request to have his or her face and voice obscured during the testimony. At the committee, no arguments were offered in opposition so there was some confusion and some Members voted against it. I hope that will not happen on the House floor today.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Madam Chairman, I rise to support this amendment to protect the parent-child privilege. A few weeks ago, I joined with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) to introduce a bill to create this privilege in Federal law; and I am proud to support this amendment today. Frankly, I always assumed it was in the law. It was only when we read about the situation with Ms. Lewis being compelled to testify against her daughter by the independent counsel that I, to my surprise, found there was no such privilege. This amendment will not affect that situation. That testimony has already occurred. But it will affect the future. We pride ourselves in this country on the sanctity of the family. It is one of the core, fundamental American values. We encourage our kids to talk to us. We ask them to confide in us, to come to us when they are in trouble. It is not always easy, but I am sure a lot of fellow parents out there will agree with me when I say that developing that bond of trust between parent and child is part of what being a parent is all about. The concept that a parent could be compelled to testify against his or her own daughter or son is shocking to a lot of people. It is shocking to me. In fact, a lot of people that I have spoken to are amazed that this kind of thing is not illegal already. They have asked, how can we do this in America? We have decided in our judicial system that certain privileges, certain relationships are sacred. The vast majority of jurisdictions recognize the husband-wife privilege as well as attorney-client and psychiatrist-patient. And, yes, there are cases that would have turned out differently if we could have compelled a psychiatrist to testify about his patient or lawyer against her client or husband against wife or wife against husband. But that is not the kind of judicial system we want, where husbands and wives are compelled to testify against each other except where there has occurred spousal abuse or child abuse or something of that nature. It is not the kind of country we want. I have long believed that the same sort of privilege should be extended to parents or children. No parents should ever be faced with the agony of being in contempt of court or of testifying against his or her child. No child should ever have to fear that sharing personal information with his parent or her parent could result in a subpoena for his parent. This amendment would remedy this by establishing this parent-child privilege and would require the Federal courts to establish its boundaries according to the principles of common law as well as the court's own reason and experience. For the past several years, there has been a lot of talk in this town about family values. I think it is fair to say that this amendment is a test of that. If we truly respect family values, we must put our money where our mouth is. If we truly respect family values, we must protect the ability of parents and children to have full trust in each other and not fear the court's subpoena to get in between them. Now, I heard the gentleman a moment ago say that we do not want to prevent parents, that this amendment might prevent parents from notifying authorities in case of crimes or damages. But that is mistaken. It would not. This amendment would only prevent compulsion from the court. It would prevent the court from compelling a parent to testify or a child to testify against his or her parent. It would certainly not prevent the parents from notifying the police or the courts of drugs of or crimes or of danger or anything else that they wanted to notify and thought it advisable to notify the police or other authorities about. It simply would say the court shall not be between a parent and child and compel that testimony. I think we have to recognize, as to this human relationship we have, if we are ever going to be serious about protecting family values, this is the key. Everything else we do about family values may be wise or not wise, but nothing is more key than enabling a parent and a child to talk under all circumstances without anyone worrying that someone is going to compel the child or the parent to testify in court about the confidences. We want children to be able to confide in their parents and vice versa. So I very much urge all my colleagues to support this excellent amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I think it is an excellent amendment. We have all read in the newspapers of settlements of major lawsuits in which many of the documents in court, the terms of the settlement, are secret. The fact is one of the purposes of our system of justice is to vindicate the public interest and the public safety. The suit in which someone sues a major company because the product they are producing is unsafe, that it is going to cause deaths, and the company settles the suit, and one of the terms of the settlement is that the evidence and the admission, perhaps, that this product is unsafe, or will cause death unless modified; you keep that secret so people do not know it, that does not serve the public interest. Companies should not be permitted to buy off for cash these kind of safety concerns so that other members of the public will die or be injured. This needs to be in the public domain. So I commend the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for having the originality and initiative to offer this amendment. I ask my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we had a number of other speakers, about eight or nine other speakers, who, because of the lateness of the hour and the arrival of other events of the evening, who had planned to.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to represent most of the district once represented by the late Bella Abzug in Congress, and as such I come forward today together with my friend from the District of Columbia and with the Congressional Women's Caucus to say a few words about a departed legend. I would like to thank Congressman Owens of New York for so kindly giving us this special order time which he had reserved. Not only was she driven to do the right thing, but she demanded the same of everyone she came in contact with. She was not expected to win her 1970 campaign for the House. I remember when she ran the first time, I campaigned for her. I just graduated from college; we had run against the same incumbent every 2 years since 1962, and we lost in 1962, and we lost in 1964. We lost in 1966; we lost in 1968; and no one expected any different in 1970. But Bella changed the mode. Bella didn't just try to get out her vote and up the percentage a few percentage points and hope that more of our vote would come out than theirs. Bella went into the opposition stronghold and cracked it, and made them vote for her and changed the whole tone and the whole model of politics in lower Manhattan. I remember the astonishment when she won that June day in 1970. She changed the mode and the model of how New York politics was looked at. Then she got here, and, of course, she made an immediate impression. It is hard to realize, she was such an inspiration to an entire generation. She made such an impression that we still remember today that it is hard to realize she served in this House for only three terms, for only 6 years. But in that time, what a difference she made, what a difference she made for the emerging feminist movement, what a difference she made for the rights of women, for civil rights, for civil liberties, for social justice, for the struggle for economic justice. What a boost she gave to the opposition to an unjust war in Vietnam, and what a difference she made in so many different subjects. People remember her as a great speaker, and a great leader, and a great expositor, and a great example. But sometimes I think they do not remember that she was also a great legislative crafts person. She, for example, crafted the interstate transfer amendment under which 32 States gained billions and billions and billions of dollars for mass transit systems from highways whose construction they had changed their minds about. And she enabled them to trade in unwanted highways on the map for new mass transit systems, or for improved mass transit systems. In my own city of New York, we got $1.7 billion for the mass transit system by trading in the West Way Highway, about which city and State government changed their minds. So she was a great legislative crafts person, and she was a great leader on a host of issues. And she never, never thought that enough was enough. I remember whenever I would talk to her, she would say to me, are you doing enough? Are you doing enough? Whatever it was I was doing, are you doing enough? And then occasionally, almost begrudgingly, very occasionally, she would say, well, you are doing okay. And I would leave our conversation feeling as if I had received the greatest compliment one could ever receive. That is one of my memories of Bella, and I am sure many Members of Congress have others they would like to share. That is why we are holding this special order so that those of us who still remain at this late hour can come forward and give former Representative Bella Abzug the tribute which is surely her due. Let me add one other thing. She made as great a contribution to the people of this country, to the people of this world, after she left the House, and unfortunately she was not elected to the Senate, but after she left the House, as she did before. As the Representative of the United States to the United Nations, to various conferences, to women's conferences, abroad, she made a great contribution, and it will be long remembered. Finally, regarding my colleague, I can only conclude with this: When Bella Abzug left this House, this chamber became a poorer place. Likewise, with her passing, the world became a poorer place, though all of us are immensely richer for her presence on this planet. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the tribute to Bella Abzug.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of McCollum versus Board of Education of School District No. 71, in which the Court clearly expressed the importance of maintaining the separation of church and state. As the Congress considers a proposed constitutional amendment which threatens that important principle, I urge every member of this House to read the Court's decision. It clearly illustrates how the separation of church and state, enshrined in the First Amendment, protects the fundamental rights of free conscience and religious liberty. The McCollum family had a son attending the fourth grade in a public school in Champaign, Illinois. The Champaign school district allowed a local private organization, the Champaign Council on Religious Education, to send religious teachers into the public school during regular school hours. Students were released from regular classes to attend private religious instruction in the public school building. In theory, any remaining students were required to leave their classrooms and pursue their regular studies elsewhere in the school building. In practice, James McCollum was the only student in his class who did not attend the religious instruction. He was sent to the principal's office or made to sit at the detention desk for problem students out in the hall--as though he were being punished. The family was also subject to ostracism. They became outcasts in Champaign, and the children, particularly James, were harassed. The family cat was killed, and once, on Halloween, the family answered the door to trick-or-treaters only to be pelted with garbage. The verbal abuse grew so great that when James got to junior high, be moved to Rochester, N.Y., to live with his grandmother and go to school there. According to James, now a retired attorney, his mother worked at the University of Illinois, but when it became known that she had brought this lawsuit, she was fired. Unfortunately, this sort of situation is far from a thing of the past. Many of my colleagues may remember the testimony of Lisa Herdahl whose family challenged prayers and religious Bible instruction in the public schools in Pontotoc County, Mississippi. The Herdahl children were harassed at school and singled out by teachers and other students. The family was subject to community protests and hostile newspaper coverage. After school officials ignored the Herdahl family's requests to put an end to the coercive practices, People for the American Way Foundation and the ACLU of Mississippi filed suit in federal court, citing the McCollum case among others. Two years ago, a federal judge ruled against the school district, and school officials decided not to appeal. We are often urged to blur, or even eliminate, the line that has long separated church from state. But experience shows us that when we allow this to happen, the rights of individual Americans are trampled upon by the majority. The purpose of the ``wall of separation'' is not to protect government from religious, as it is often alleged, but to protect religion, and particularly the individual religious beliefs of all Americans from government. When some in the community attempt to use the power of government, in these cases against children required by law to be present in school, to further their own sectarian goals, the hand of government will inevitably be coercive. If religious freedom is to have any meaning at all, if must be that no one should ever be allowed to use the power of government to coerce another citizen, especially a vulnerable and impressionable child, on matters of faith. Justice Hugo Black wrote in his opinion in McCollum, ``the First Amendment rests upon the premise that both religion and government can best work to achieve their lofty aims if each is left free from the other within its respective sphere.'' The hard and bitter experience of families, like the McCollum family fifty years ago, and the Herdahl family in this decade, is that the authors of the First Amendment were right to keep government away from religion, the Court was right in remaining true to the principle, and it would be a terrible mistake for Congress to ignore the lessons of history and wisdom of our Bill of Rights. Justice Felix Frankfurter, put it well in the McCollum case, when he wrote, ``The great American principle of eternal separation . . . is one of the vital reliances of our Constitutional system for assuring unities among our people stronger than our diversities.'' I hope the members of this Congress will defend our national unity, the rights of all Americans, and leave the First Amendment the way it is.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I came to the floor bearing the unfortunate news that former Congresswoman Bella Abzug had died. I would now like to take this opportunity to say a few words about our colleague, who affected this House and this nation deeply. Bella Abzug was a woman ahead of her time. I am not the first to come to this conclusion, and I am certainly not the only person who will point out this fact as the world reflects on this loss. So perhaps it is fitting to go one step further, and say: Bella Abzug was not only a woman ahead of her time. She was a woman who ushered in a new time. I don't think it is unreasonable to say that Bella Abzug changed the way Americans think about female politicians, and for a very uncomplicated reason: she made us do so. She wasn't afraid to demand the respect she deserved, and I think maybe the perfect example of that comes from a story she told about why she started wearing her trademark hats. ``When I first became a lawyer,'' she said a few years ago, ``only about 2 percent of the Bar was women. People would always think I was a secretary. In those days, professional women in the business world wore hats. So I started wearing hats.'' And as we all know, she never stopped. But Bella Abzug didn't go into politics out of personal ambition. One of the fundamental things about her, maybe her defining element-- beneath the character, beneath the voice, beneath the hats--was her tireless social conscience. She had no time for typical politicians, and even less time for politics as usual. And not only was she driven to do the right thing, but she demanded the same of everyone she came in contact with. I remember that whenever I would talk to her, she would say to me, ``Are you doing enough? Are you doing enough?'' And then, occasionally, almost begrudgingly, she would say, ``Well, you're doing okay.'' I would leave our conversation feeling as if I had received the greatest compliment one could ever receive. That is one of my memories of Bella, and I am sure many Members of Congress have others they would like to share. That is why we will be holding a Special Order following the upcoming district work period, where I invite our colleagues with memories to share to come forward, and to give to former Representative Azbug the tribute which is surely her due. Finally, regarding my colleague I can only conclude with this: when Bella Abzug left the House of Representatives, this chamber became a poorer place. Likewise, yesterday the world became a poorer place, though all of us are richer for having experienced Bella's presence.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I have the sad duty to inform the House of the passing of a distinguished former Member of this House. Bella Abzug, who served here from 1970 to 1976 and had a distinguished career before her service here and after her service here, passed away this morning. We will arrange a special order to talk about Bella and her many contributions to the welfare of this country. When we know about arrangements, we will inform the House, but we have just found out and she passed away just about an hour and a half ago.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we are all in favor of emergency help to people who suffered from storms and to pay the bills for what we are doing in Bosnia. But, Mr. Speaker, some of the offsets here are unconscionable. Mr. Speaker, in the entire budget there is $10 billion for section 8 housing. This is not for new section 8 units. This is for supplementing the rent payments of low-income people in existing housing. This bill proposes to cut that by $2.2 billion, 22 percent. And since there is no new section 8 housing, what does it mean? It means we are going to not renew the contracts of existing section 8s. It means that, in the next couple of years, we are going to say to 350,000 families, leave your homes. We are going to throw them out on the street. We are going to tell them the subsidies end. The rent doubled, they are guaranteed not to be able to pay that because, if they could afford it, they would not be in the program in the first place. So, in order to meet some people's definition that we should not fund emergency programs out of emergency funds, those 350,000 people are out of their homes. I hope that is not what we want to do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, let us go to basics here. The basics are that unions are voluntary democratic institutions. We do not tell library associations how they can spend their money. The members determine that by majority vote and by the leaders they elect. If a union member under current law does not want his money spent to explain legislation to members or for other political reasons, he can ask that his money not be spent, which is more than most organizations. This bill is hypocritical. This bill says a union cannot spend money for these purposes until they get every individual signed off, but a corporation can spend money unless the individual shareholder says no. Why do we not make them both the same? The union and the corporation can spend money unless the individual says no, or neither can spend money unless the individual said yes. Then the bill would not be hypocritical.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the State Department Authorization bill would place an international gag rule on organizations that use their own non-U.S. funds to provide abortion services. It also threatens to cut off $29 million from our international family planning efforts if the President attempts to defer the ban on funding to organizations that use their own private funds for abortion services. This policy is clearly unacceptable, and is not supported by the President or by the American people. Why? Because the American people understand that family planning is necessary, successful, and addresses a critical need. According to the World Health Organization, nearly 600,000 women die each year of causes related to pregnancy and childbirth. International family planning efforts have been remarkably successful and have saved women's lives. I am shocked that proponents of these so-called ``Mexico City'' restrictions claim that our family planning programs actually increase the number of abortions, when, in fact, the exact opposite is true. Studies show that our efforts, as part of an international strategy, have prevented more than 500 million unintended pregnancies. International family planning improves women's health, helps reduce poverty, and protects our global environment. Our family planning programs save lives, and they should be continued without unnecessary restrictions. There is no need to impose this type of gag rule on organizations that use their own money to further their objectives and to make women's lives safer. The ``Mexico City'' restrictions are pernicious, unnecessary, and harmful. If this bill were to be enacted, it would severely limit family planning efforts and simply result in more unwanted pregnancies, more fatalities among women, and more abortions. I strongly oppose these provisions of the State Department Authorization bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose strongly the Sensenbrenner amendment and to support the McCollum amendment to the Sensenbrenner amendment. The Sensenbrenner amendment would be essentially a license for restaurants, taverns, and other establishments to use songwriters' work product, their property, without paying for it. It would be a license to steal from America's creative community and, therefore, I must oppose it vigorously. The late Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that, ``It is true that the music is not the sole object, but neither is the food,'' referring to a restaurant. The object is the repast and surroundings that give luxurious pleasure not to be had from eating a silent meal. If music did not pay, it would be given up. Whether it pays or not, the purpose of employing it is profit and that is enough. Mr. Chairman, several people have said, and I will say it for myself, that I never thought I would come before the House, advocating support of an amendment that would exempt an establishment as large as 3,500 square feet. The McCollum amendment, frankly, I think goes far too far. But it is acceptable to the songwriters. I do not think they are getting as fair a deal as they ought out of it, but I will support it as the best we can get. Mr. Chairman, I looked at this issue very carefully when I was a member of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary, and I remember coming to several conclusions after hearing from both sides. The first conclusion is the question of equity. Ninety percent of songwriters make less than $10,000 a year. Many make more, but are still struggling. The average restaurant pays $400 to $450 a year for songwriter fees. The average income of the restaurant makes that a small proportion, a very small proportion, and yet for the songwriters it is very important. So as a matter of equity, when something is very important for one side as a percentage of their income and very small for the other, it makes sense to go with the side that we would really hurt if we went the other way. Second of all, and here I fail to see how some of my friends on the other side of the aisle can even think of supporting this amendment, we are talking here about private property. We are talking about private arrangements between one group of property owners, the songwriters who own the songs that they have produced, and another group of property owners, the restaurant owners who want to purchase the use of those songs. I am not a total believer in the efficacy of the free market in all circumstances, unlike some of my friends on the other side of the aisle. But I do believe that before the government should come in and pass a law dictating the terms of an arrangement between property owners, before we should come in and say some can use that music for free and some must pay, there has got to be a very, very strong showing of the public policy necessity. There has got to be a showing of why the free market and private negotiations cannot work its will to the best interest of the economy and the people of the country, as it usually does. One has to make a showing why the free market cannot work in a situation before we ask for government regulation. What do we have here? We have some people coming in, some people who are normally great supporters of private property rights and against regulation and, based on nothing at all, saying let us dictate the terms of the arrangement and say to the restaurant owners they can use the other people's property for free. Why? What is the necessity? Why do we not trust the market to work this out? Why do we not trust the songwriters and the restaurants to negotiate deals as they have for the last, I do not know, 70 or 80 years? I see no reason. We hear that here it is a question of secondary use; that they have already paid once for it. Well, so what? So what? I would not be permitted, none of us would be permitted to purchase a CD or a tape of a movie, purchase it, go in and pay $15 for a tape of a movie, and then going go to my machine and making a lot of tapes of it and selling those. None of us would be permitted to do that. We are using that property, and it is exactly the same thing. So on these grounds I do not see why we should pass any amendment at all on the subject. I will reluctantly go along with the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) as a reasonable compromise, and certainly more reasonable than an attempt, frankly, to appropriate the songwriters' property for free, for the benefit of restaurant owners. Mr. Chairman, I love restaurant owners. I have plenty of them in my district. But they are not entitled to the free use of other people's property. Period. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the Sensenbrenner amendment and support the McCollum amendment to the Sensenbrenner amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise to support this resolution and to condemn thoroughly the brutal acts of repression and of murder that have occurred recently in Kosovo. Last month Serbian paramilitary police units swept through Kosovo and killed dozens of ethnic Albanians. Many people were brutally beaten to death. Then, on March 2nd, during a peaceful protest against this massacre, Serbian police again attacked about 30,000 Kosovo residents. This is an outrage. The actions of the Serbian government warn us that ethnic hatred still threatens to erupt into genocide. They must halt these actions immediately, and they must take concrete steps to ensure that this type of violent police oppression will never occur again. Unfortunately, Slobodan Milosevic has made discrimination against ethnic Albanians official policy. He has made ethnic hatred and ethnic slaughter official policy in a fashion not seen in Europe since the Nazis. We had ample warning that this brutality would happen. The State Department on Human Rights stated that ``political violence, including killing by police, resulted mostly from efforts by Serbian authorities to suppress and intimidate ethnic minority groups.'' It went on to report that police repression continues to be directed against ethnic minorities, and police committed the most widespread and worst abuses against Kosovo's 90 percent ethnic Albanian population. All of this was reported before the most recent incidents of this year. So we must act swiftly and firmly. The Serbian authorities must not be allowed to get away with these atrocities. The work of the International Contact Group ought to be commended, but it must be intensified. They ought to make very clear to the government in Belgrade that another round of ethnic cleansing and of ethnic murder will not be tolerated. International war crimes investigators and organizations providing medical assistance must have immediate and unfettered access to the people of Kosovo. International observers supported by the contact group must establish a presence in Kosovo and maintain constant vigilance against further Serbian abuses. We must impose tougher sanctions against Serbia, and we must maintain an arms embargo against this brutal regime. We cannot sit idly by while the butchers in Belgrade use violence and oppression to maintain their political power. We cannot allow the bloodshed and destruction that occurred in Bosnia to begin all over again in Kosovo. We cannot allow this violence to escalate and spread into neighboring nations and result possibly in a general war. The elections scheduled in Kosovo should be allowed to proceed unimpeded by Belgrade, and the elected leaders who will be elected in Kosovo should begin a dialogue with the Belgrade authorities in an attempt to resolve the situation without violence. These are just a few of the steps that must be taken in order to prevent further bloodshed and oppression. Unfortunately, we have not acted soon enough to address these obvious and persistent abuses and murderous actions by Serbia, and today dozens of people are dead because of international indifference. The time to act officially is now. We must not waste any more time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we will need all that bipartisan support in both Houses at the end of the day. So I look forward to working with the gentlewoman and I hope with the majority in trying to work these problems out. In the meantime, I urge the adoption of this amendment as resolving one of the problems with the bill, and even with this amendment adopted, the bill will still deal with the core problem with the 98 percent for which it was, of the problem for which it was designed, and it would be more likely to be passed. So I urge the adoption of the amendment.