Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Yes.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Nobody said that the national motto ``In God We Trust'' is just words. Nobody said any such thing. What I said is that this resolution is just words because no one is threatening the national motto. It's there. It's on our currency, and it's on our walls. It's there. It's our national motto. No one denies that fact. Nothing will change when we pass this resolution. It was our national motto yesterday, it's our national motto today, and it will be our national motto tomorrow. This resolution is simply words designed to distract attention from our real problems to a nonexistent problem. There's no challenge to our national motto. There is no challenge to the foundations of this country. There is a challenge to our economy, and that we ought to be paying attention to. So all the nice words that my friend from Virginia talked about how important our belief in God is, I agree, obviously. But this resolution is a waste of time and a diversion. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, this bill seeks to undo women's constitutional rights under the guise of being about government funding for abortion. The law, unfortunately, already forbids Federal funds from paying for abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or where the woman's life is in danger. This bill goes well beyond that. It would make it virtually impossible for any of the health plans offered through the health exchanges set up as part of the Affordable Care Act to cover abortions. As the authors plainly intend, it would make it virtually impossible for most women to buy insurance coverage for abortions with their own money. The bill would also allow a doctor or hospital to refuse to provide an abortion to a woman whose life is in imminent peril. They could let that woman die right there in the emergency room, and the government would be powerless to do anything. Madam Speaker, I remember a time not that long ago when women had no options for legal abortions and had to resort to illegal back alley abortionists. Women were butchered, many died, others became sterile, all because the medical care they desperately sought and the compassion they desperately needed was denied to them. No woman should be treated with this contempt. The real purpose of this bill--which denies women the right to purchase insurance coverage for legal abortions, even with their own money--is to make it impossible for women to exercise their constitutional right to choose for themselves. This bill is an abomination. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained at a meeting outside the Capitol, and I missed one vote on October 5, 2011. Had I been able to, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 747, an amendment offered by Mr. Waxman to H.R. 2681, the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act of 2011.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be in Washington, DC on September 12, 2011 and September 14-15, 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 699, the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 700, the Appeal Time Clarification Act of 2011; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 701, to protect the safety of judges by extending the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact sensitive information contained in their financial disclosure reports; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 706, relating to the disapproval of the President's exercise of authority to increase the debt limit; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 707, on ordering the previous question on the rule for H.R. 2587; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 708, the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2587; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 709, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Reform and Reauthorization Act of 2011; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 710, the motion to recommit H.R. 2587; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 711, final passage of the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this country is in the middle of a great crisis, entirely an artificial crisis created by an attempt by one political party to blackmail the entire country into adopting its program of destroying Medicare and Social Security and food stamps and unemployment and all of the things that many of our people depend on. But why do I say it's an artificial crisis? Because the debt ceiling increase is something we normally do--seven times during President Bush's administration. Some people think to raise the debt ceiling is to say we're going to borrow and spend more. No, it's not. You raise the debt ceiling in order to pay for bills you already incurred because of decisions made 2 and 3 and 5 years ago, mostly during the Bush administration. Not to raise the debt ceiling is like going into an expensive restaurant, having an expensive meal, and then getting the bill and saying, Oh, my God. I've got too much money on my credit card. I don't think I'll pay the bill. Well, if that's the case, you shouldn't have had the meal. If you don't want to pay the bill, you shouldn't have made those budget decisions. You shouldn't have cut those taxes 10 years ago and gotten into those wars 7 and 8 years ago and made the other decisions that piled up the deficit. If you want to have a debate, which we should, on how to change our policies in the future, that's for the budget debate. We're going to pass the budget at some point. We're going to debate tax levels, expenditure levels. But instead, what are they doing? They're saying, That's a nice economy you've got there; pity if something should happen to it. And if you don't do exactly what we want, we're going to destroy it by not raising the debt ceiling and causing a collapse in credit so that everybody's interest rates go up and that people have to pay a thousand dollars more a month on their mortgage or whatever, because it's a ripple right throughout the economy. A default would be a real crisis for the economy, and it will cost the economy probably a trillion dollars in extra deficit spending over the next 10 years just in higher interest costs. But if we don't do exactly what they want, to destroy Medicare and Social Security and the other things they never liked in the first place, they will wreck the economy by not raising the debt ceiling in order not to pay the bills that they incurred. Then we hear that we have a deficit crisis, that, after all, the country is broke. We've got to cut the budget. Even the President says the country is broke. We've got to cut the budget--a little less savagely, but we've still got to cut. Wrong. The country is not broke. It is just that we are not taxing the millionaires and the billionaires and the corporations the way we used to. In 1950, the corporations paid 6 percent of the entire economy of the GDP in corporate taxes. Today, it's under 1 percent. Twenty years ago, 30 percent of all income taxes came from corporations; today, it's under 6 percent. And that's why the middle class feels overtaxed, because they are, because we don't tax the millionaires and the billionaires the way we used to. We don't tax the corporations the way we used to--the big multinationals, I'm talking about, not the small businesses. Instead, we've shifted the tax burden to the middle class, and we don't get enough tax revenue. And the fact of the matter is, if you look at the budget of 2001 and if you look at the budget of 2011, in 2001, the budget was $258 billion in surplus. It was the last Clinton budget. How has it changed? Why is this budget $1.2 trillion in deficit and that was a quarter trillion in balance? What's changed? Well, adjusted for inflation and for population growth, nondefense discretionary spending, everything they want to cut now, hasn't changed at all. It was $369 billion then; it's $369 billion now. What's changed? Well, defense spending and homeland security spending have gone up 74 percent because of two wars and a lot of bloat, a 74 percent increase in defense spending. Mandatory programs, that is to say, Medicare, Social Security, veterans, up 32 percent. And it is not only those. There is also unemployment insurance, mostly because we're in a recession, and you have to pay more unemployment insurance and food stamps and so forth. Total revenues are down 24 percent. From a bigger country, we're getting 24 percent less revenue today. Why? Because in 2001, the taxes collected 20 percent of GDP, and today it's 14.5 percent of GDP. So what should we be doing? Well, first of all, we should raise the debt ceiling to recognize the debts that were already incurred, and we should do it cleanly, so as not to throw the economy into a tailspin. Then we should debate all of these issues in the budget. We should raise taxes on the millionaires, the billionaires, the corporations; cut defense; and try not to tamper with people's Social Security, Medicare, and the things that they depend on. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle would not be here today if President Jefferson had not borrowed to finance the Louisiana Purchase. Mr. Speaker, this bill promises all the fun of a constitutional amendment without actually amending the Constitution. It simply says that the United States should default on our debts and destroy our economy if we don't amend the Constitution. If we default on our debts, we will do more damage to our economy than large deficits, tax increases and draconian cuts combined. Right now, we enjoy very low interest rates because we are still the most stable, reliable and wealthy country in the world. If the markets get the idea that we are too dysfunctional to pay our debts, even though we are certainly wealthy enough to do so, nothing else will matter. Interest rates will climb. Homeowners and businesses will be pushed out of the credit market. The stock market will crash. Never before in the history of this country has anyone been irresponsible enough to play chicken with our full faith and credit. Never. We know how to balance the budget, because we've done it before. In the not-too-distant past, we managed, in working with President Clinton, not only to balance the budget but to run surpluses and begin paying down the debt. Unfortunately, President Bush and a Republican Congress managed to turn record surpluses into record deficits in record time. Rather than admit to serious Republican economic mismanagement and finding responsible solutions, we get this dusted-off quack cure from the past. The so-called balanced budget amendment requires a balanced budget much sooner than does the Republican budget that the House recently passed, the one that abolishes Medicare and turns Medicaid into a block grant. I asked the sponsor of the balanced budget amendment, the gentleman from Virginia, how he thought this could be done. He answered that the Republican Study Committee budget, which is even more radical than the Ryan budget, would be in balance in just 9 years. That's what we're really voting for today--an accelerated version of the Republican Study Committee budget. Anyone voting for this should be prepared to go home and explain that vote, including Republican members who voted against their study committee budget. Economists have long known that, in good times, you should balance the budget and pay down the debt but that, in times of recession, when tax revenues plummet and the economy contracts, you have to spend money on unemployment insurance and on putting people back to work. You must run a deficit to get the economy going again. The balanced budget amendment would force us to do the exact opposite and turn every recession into a depression. This constitutional amendment does a whole lot more than require a balanced budget. Many of its provisions simply cement into the Constitution the policy preferences of the current majority and bind our children and grandchildren to those preferences. The two-thirds requirement, for example, to increase revenues would have the perverse effect of allowing special interest tax loopholes to be slipped into law with a majority vote, but would require a supermajority to repeal them. This is not just antithetical to a balanced budget; it would also cement the most corrupt aspects of our Tax Code into the Constitution. The amendment would also require a two-thirds vote for any budget that exceeds 18 percent of GDP. The CBO tells us: ``Outlays have averaged close to 21 percent of GDP over the past 40 years.'' Federal outlays have not dropped below 18 percent since 1966--that is, since the enactment of Medicare. Regardless of what other parts of this bill may say, there is no way to meet these restrictions without destroying Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, veterans' programs, and military preparedness. That's just arithmetic, and no amount of rhetoric will change it.

Mr. NADLER. The real problem is that tax revenues have declined from 20\1/2\ percent of GDP in 2000 to 14\1/2\ percent of GDP because we no longer tax the millionaires, the billionaires and the large corporations the way we used to. Let's start doing that, and we can have a balanced budget without phoney constitutional amendments which promise balanced budgets, without showing how, but that do protect the millionaires from paying their fair share.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Harry Van Arsdale Jr. Center for Labor Studies at SUNY Empire State College on the occasion of its 40th anniversary. The New York State legislature created SUNY Empire State College in 1971 in order to provide educational opportunities to adults not adequately served by traditional residential colleges. At the same time, it also established the Center for Labor Studies, which was renamed in 1986 to honor the distinguished labor leader, the long-time business manager of LBEW Local 3 and president of the New York City Central Labor Council, who did so much to support its creation. The Harry Van Arsdale Jr. Center for Labor Studies at SUNY Empire State College continues to fulfill its namesake's dream of providing wage-earning adults with an opportunity to develop their labor leadership skills and to earn a college degree in a learning environment that celebrates their achievements and recognizes their particular needs. To do so, the Van Arsdale Center provides flexible, worker-friendly educational programs delivered by highly qualified faculty to ensure that its trade union students and other working adults may acquire the analytical and communicative skills that are the hallmark of a college degree. The center currently serves several important constituencies in the New York City area, including IBEW Local 3 and United Association Local 1 apprentices, as well as paraeducators affiliated with the United Federation of Teachers. The longest-standing of these partnerships is with the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry in New York City (JIB), and it is one of the center's most successful partnerships. Since 1978 every registered electrical apprentice in IBEW Local 3 has been required to complete, in addition to their related classroom instruction in electrical theory, an academic course of study in which they learn to read and write at the college level and for which they are awarded a college degree; or, if they already have a degree, a 20- credit certificate in ``Labor and the Construction Industry.'' Other programs were added later: the paraeducator program of the UFT in 2006, the college degree program of UA Local 1 in 2008; and others are in development. The Harry Van Arsdale Jr. Center for Labor Studies has graduated more than 5,000 men and women, many of whom have gone on to hold positions of honor in the New York City labor movement and beyond. Please join me in congratulating this exemplary educational organization on the occasion of its 40th anniversary.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the rescinding of unobligated high-speed rail funds in the bill that we are considering today. During the full committee markup of the 2012 Energy and Water appropriations bill, Chairman Frelinghuysen offered an amendment providing $1.028 billion in emergency funding to the Army Corps of Engineers to repair damage caused by recent storms and floods and to prepare for future disaster events. It makes sense to spend money on that; we have always given money for emergencies. But the funding is offset in the chairman's amendment by a recision of all the remaining unobligated high-speed rail funding that was originally approved in the American Recovery Act. The language of the amendment would rescind all unobligated high- speed rail funding as opposed to just $1.028 billion to be spent for the emergency. This provision jeopardizes several important projects that are already underway, already in the planning stages, that support good jobs and will make long-overdue improvements to our rail system. Last May, the Department of Transportation awarded some of these high-speed rail funds for major improvements on the Northeast Corridor, such as $449 million for catenary improvements, which would allow trains to reach 160 miles per hour on certain segments, and $294 million for the Harold Interlocking in Queens, which would reduce delays for Amtrak and on the Long Island Railroad. I've heard a lot of people complain about the trip times and reliability on the Northeast Corridor and complain that even the Acela is not true high-speed rail, and they're right. But these are the kinds of projects that have to be done to prepare to make significant improvements in the corridor and to prepare the way for true high-speed rail later. Make no mistake: These are projects that are happening now. This is not money just sitting there waiting for a visionary high-speed rail system to come about. This is money going to real infrastructure investments now that support real jobs now and support real economic development when we need it most. I share the chairman's desire to provide funding to the Army Corps to repair storm damage, but this is not the way to go about it. This is a perfect example of why we have--or used to have--different rules for emergency spending. If something unexpected happens, massive storms and floods, we should be able to respond without jeopardizing other funding. We always said that emergency funding didn't have to be paid for by offsetting other reductions in worthy programs. I am very concerned about the underinvestment in transportation and infrastructure that seems to have taken hold on the other side of the aisle. We have always had bipartisan agreement that investing in roads, rails, bridges, highways, tunnels and transit is an essential government function. And historically, it's what made the economy grow. From Henry Clay's American system and the internal improvements and Abraham Lincoln's transcontinental railroad, from the Eerie Canal of DeWitt Clinton, in more recent times the interstate highway system of Dwight Eisenhower, the economy of the United States was built on these infrastructure developments. As the Nation is embroiled in negotiations over the debt limit now and how to address the long-term deficit, this is yet another example of the misguided thinking that cutting government spending is somehow the answer to these long-term economic challenges. It is unfathomable that we would pass anything that would eliminate good jobs, and not just the direct transportation and construction jobs but all of the jobs dependent on the connectivity and efficiency of our transportation system. We need to make the investments necessary to put America on a path toward long-term economic growth. We should be providing a lot more money for high-speed rail, which is one of the connection systems of the future. This bill that we will be considering today takes an extra step backward by revoking funds already allocated--not necessarily obligated, but allocated and announced--for ongoing projects that are moving ahead. I urge my colleagues to fix this provision. Emergency funding is obviously warranted for the floods, but it should not be done by eliminating already allocated funds for high- speed rail in an area where we very much need those improvements on the current transportation system. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, to sum up, this helps the Israelis; it helps the United States; it helps the general security; and it sends the message to the European allies they should start looking into maybe putting some real effort into NATO, which they haven't been doing in recent years, as our Secretary of Defense Gates said recently. Let's support Secretary of the Department of Defense Gates and let's get them to start making a little effort and send them a little message here. So I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. NADLER. I will be brief. First of all, I'm told that the amount in the bill here, $200 million, is essentially the amount that is being spent now; so this is not really a reduction. Secondly, I just want to add one thing to what the gentlelady from Minnesota said. Over the break we just had, I went to a food pantry operated by a church on Coney Island. There was a line out the door of about 70 or 80 people. They were giving food packets 3 days out of every month; 3 days out of every month, and trying to figure out how to scrounge enough money to give food packets 4 days out of every month. And, of course, we are cutting the budget for Women, Infants and Children. We are cutting the budget for food aid. We are cutting the budget for food stamps. We can maintain the military bands and not expand them. We have to keep this in perspective. Yes, I love John Philip Sousa. I love military bands. I love marching bands. But people have to eat. And we are being savaged in the budget that we are passing and in the negotiations on the debt ceiling. We are being savaged on things for people to eat. This seems the least we can do.

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

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment tonight that will save both blood and an immense amount of money. The amendment I am introducing along with Congressman Blumenauer designates already authorized funds in the amount of $15 million to be used to insulate the shelters at forward operating bases in Afghanistan. Properly insulating military shelters can significantly reduce energy consumption, which in turn can decrease the number of vulnerable fuel convoys needed to support our troops. These fuel convoys cost us dearly. They are an absolutely vital supply link to our troops in the field, but they are exposed to constant and devastating attack. Despite the Pentagon spending $24 billion a year to protect fuel convoys in Afghanistan, more than 3,000 troops and civilian contractors have been killed or wounded while riding on convoy. What's more, fully two-thirds of the fuel used in Afghanistan goes to provide electricity for air-conditioning and heat at military installations. If we can reduce the energy required to heat and cool shelters in the field, then we can reduce the number of vulnerable fuel trucks needed to support the operations. Simply put, insulating the structures in the field will save lives of people who will not be on convoys to be attacked. We will also save money. Properly insulated shelters use up to 92 percent less energy for their heating and cooling. With more than 200,000 gallons of diesel fuel used every day to power our forward operating bases in Afghanistan, insulating our field shelters has the potential to significantly reduce fuel consumption. A similar insulation effort in Iraq has led to almost $1 billion a year in savings and has taken more than 11,000 fuel trucks off the road. This in turn has helped to prevent an estimated 458 casualties in Iraq. A little arithmetic will show you that this $15 million invested in insulating the shelters in the forward bases in Afghanistan should save several billion dollars in costs, as well as thousands of lives. I want to thank Congressmen Blumenauer, Hinchey, and Welch for their support of this amendment. Together, the amendment provides a commonsense way to reduce fuel consumption across the war zone. This would save about two-thirds of the 200,000 gallons used a day. With the total cost of fuel sometimes exceeding $400 a gallon in Afghanistan, including the transport costs, and thousands of casualties suffered by fuel convoys, a small investment of $15 million in energy efficient insulation can go a long way in saving thousands of lives and upwards of billions of dollars in resources. I urge passage of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, there will be a number of amendments offered in the next little while by Mr. Garamendi, by Ms. Lee, myself and Mr. Jones and by others all in various ways seeking to speed our exit from Afghanistan. I support them all. Two weeks ago, the President proposed that we continue fighting in Afghanistan for at least 3\1/2\ more years. In those 3\1/2\ years, more of our soldiers will die, more of our Treasury will be spent and, in the end, we will not be any closer to creating a stable Afghanistan or to enhancing our safety. The whole premise of this war is wrong. Fighting in Afghanistan does not enhance the security of the United States. Ten years ago we were attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had bases in Afghanistan, and at that time it made sense to go in and destroy those bases, and we did. But the CIA tells us that there are now fewer than 100 al Qaeda personnel in all of Afghanistan. So why are we still fighting there? Why will we still have 70,000 troops in Afghanistan at the end of 2012, troops who will continue to risk their lives every day in a war that has already claimed too many American lives? And we will continue pouring billions of dollars into an intractable mess when we should be devoting taxpayer funds to our own economy, to our own jobs, our own housing, our own social programs and our own education. Afghanistan is in the middle of what is so far a 35-year civil war. If we continue on this course, in 3 years there will be several thousand more American soldiers dead, several hundred billion more dollars wasted, and two or three more provinces labeled pacified. But as soon as we leave, now, or in 2014, or 2016 or whenever, those provinces will become unpacified. The Taliban and the warlords will step up the fighting, and the Afghan civil war will resume its natural course. Our troops are fighting valiantly, Mr. Chairman, but they are in the wrong mission. We should recognize that rebuilding Afghanistan is both beyond our ability and beyond our mandate to prevent terrorists from attacking the United States. To delay withdrawal of our forces and continue this terrible policy at so high a cost is quite simply unconscionable. It is unjustifiable to sacrifice more lives and more money on this futile endeavor. Mr. Chairman, we should withdraw our troops now, all of them, as rapidly as physically possible. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, which reaffirms support for a solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict reached through negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and our opposition to any unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood, or recognition of such a declaration by the United Nations. How can a dispute between two peoples ever be resolved by the unilateral decision of one? The path to peace has been clear for many years, and provided for by Security Council resolutions and by the 1993 Oslo Accords signed by the Israelis and the Palestinians. All these agreements provide for settlement negotiated between the parties, a settlement that will result in two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a state of Palestine. Unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state is a way of avoiding negotiations on the tough issues: final borders, secure borders, Jerusalem, and the status of the Palestinian refugees of 1948 and their descendants. It is an attempt by the Palestinians to de-legitimize Israel, to impose indefensible borders unilaterally, and to get their state while retaining the ability to keep fighting Israel and to use the refugees' alleged ``right of return'' to undermine the survival of Israel as Jewish state. The Palestinian Authority should instead explain to its people that a Palestinian state can be achieved only by conceding the right of a Jewish state to live in peace and security next door. And, for that to happen, there must be a negotiated agreement recognizing two states for two peoples. Evading a negotiated agreement is a formula for future war. I urge all Members to support this resolution.