Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I won't take the 5 minutes, but I just wanted to complete a couple of comments on Amtrak from the discussion of the last amendment. That amendment, which has now been passed--I thought it wasn't--on a voice vote, but which has been passed subject to a vote on the floor presumably tomorrow, if adopted, will, as Mr. Olver said, essentially eliminate all capital funding for Amtrak after debt service is taken care of, all capital funding. Now, the question is raised: Why should we spend money on Amtrak for capital funding when it loses money? The gentleman asked that. Well, the answer is almost no transportation modality in this country makes money. That's why we had to form Amtrak in the first place. You look at trucking, for instance. You look at trucking. We support the interstate highway system without which the trucks couldn't operate. Someone may say, well, the trucks pay diesel fuel taxes; they support the highway system. Not really. One 18-wheeler of 70,000 pounds does 10,000 times the damage, the wear and tear, the vibration damage to a highway as an automobile, yet the trucks don't pay 10,000 times the gasoline tax as the automobile driver does. If we asked them to do so, trucking would be uneconomic. I'm not suggesting we should, obviously, because we need a trucking industry. By the same token, we need rail transportation because rail is three times as energy efficient per ton mile for freight. It's far more energy efficient. I don't have the figure, per passenger. We want to decrease our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. We want to have less of borrowing money from China to give it to Middle Eastern potentates who help fund the other side on the war on terror. So we need more rail. The only way we do that is by funding Amtrak, and Amtrak has to put money into capital improvements, to a large extent, because for 50 years there were no capital improvements on the passenger rail system. So an amendment like this is totally destructive, because we must have in this country a choice, a choice for shippers, a choice for people of the modalities of transportation, to make our economy more efficient and to make people's lives better so they don't sit on the highways in congestion all the time. So Amtrak is cheap enough. And for $850 million for the entire country, which is much too small, it should have been the $1.3 billion, which was the authorized level, we should maintain that level and certainly not go--well, we shouldn't have that level. We should have $1.3 billion, but the CR is bad enough taking it to 850, which only allows a couple hundred million for capital for the balance of the year. We certainly shouldn't bring it down essentially to zero by adopting the amendment that we just voice voted which will come up to a vote on the floor tomorrow.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the continuing resolution under consideration today includes very dangerous cuts to key transportation programs. This is exactly the wrong thing to do if we want to reduce unemployment, create jobs, and grow the economy. In a survey released by the American Public Transportation Association, 80 percent of private sector businesses surveyed indicated that the level of Federal investment in public transportation has a large influence on their business revenue. For example, every $10 million in capital investment in public transportation yields $30 million, three times, in increased business sales. The Texas Transportation Institute's ``2010 Urban Mobility Report'' shows that worsening road congestion across the Nation, $134 billion, $134 billion a year costs in loss productivity. And when it comes to transit alone, every $1 billion invested creates or supports 36,000 jobs. Despite the clear link between transportation funding and economic recovery, this continuing resolution cuts billions for transit, high- speed railroads, and other key infrastructure projects. The CR cuts over $8 billion from current infrastructure formula programs and already-awarded projects, resulting in the loss of over 280,000 jobs from the current budget funding levels. These proposed cuts to transportation include $4.975 billion in high- speed and intercity passenger rail grants; $710 million in transit capital investment grants; $292 million in FHWA surface transportation priorities; $150 million in grants to Amtrak; and $100 million in Federal Rail Administration rail safety technology grants. This amendment would eliminate these cuts and restore transportation funding to their current levels, not any increase for inflation, no increase for increased population, no increase for increased work, but simply to restore the current levels. We must restore these current levels because every dollar we cut reduces $3 in business activity, and every $1 billion we cut costs 36,000 jobs in an economy which cannot afford to lose tens of thousands of jobs. Unfortunately, the underlying bill cuts transportation funding so dramatically and other funding so dramatically that it is virtually impossible to write an amendment to restore transportation funding to current levels even that would be in order under the rules the House has adopted without causing great harm to other critical programs. This is particularly true since all the transportation funding programs and all the Housing and Urban Development programs which are in this title are underfunded. So it's almost impossible to say let's restore these transportation funds but eliminate other transportation or housing funds. In fact, this CR is such an irresponsible and reckless document that it is almost not worth trying to fix it. The Republicans have seized on this idea to cut $100 billion from the current budget, pulling that figure arbitrarily out of thin air and without any regard to what it could mean for our economy or the services that it prevents. It is a dangerous overreach that would be devastating for middle- and working class Americans. It would destroy tens, in fact, hundreds of thousands of jobs without replacing them and would threaten national security. The transportation cuts are a small part of these irresponsible cuts. This amendment is a small part of opposing this dangerous continuing resolution, and I anticipate unfortunately that my amendment is going to be ruled out of order. I hope that's not the case. In a rational House, it would not be the case, but I urge my colleagues to support the amendment if they have the opportunity to do so, and in order to support reasonable transportation funding so as not to decimate this economy. If necessary, I urge them to vote against the entire CR.

Mr. NADLER. Let me begin by congratulating the gentleman from New Jersey on his program to repair fistulas, which are a great problem for many women in the developing world. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

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

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

Mr. NADLER. I won't speak for 5 minutes. I've been sitting here waiting for my amendment to come up, which it will in a couple of hours probably. But I have to make one comment on everything I'm hearing on the floor. We hear amendment after amendment to extend unemployment benefits to the unemployed in a time when we have 9 percent unemployment, and they're struck down because there's no pay-for. The amendment provides no other means of paying for the unemployment insurance. For the last 50 or 60 years it was never considered necessary, in a time of recession and high unemployment, that in order to extend unemployment benefits you had to find someplace else to pay for it. It was automatic emergency spending until this Republican Congress. I hear amendment after amendment that's denied. We can't even formulate certain amendments because we can only increase, not even increase spending, we can only restore draconian spending cuts on human services that are necessary for our people if we reduce other human services. But the tax cuts that we've seen, the huge tax cuts of hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars for our wealthiest citizens at a time when the top 1 percent of our people, the richest 1 percent of our people have 24 percent of the income and almost half of the wealth in the country, we can't talk about increasing or restoring those tax cuts. Those tax cuts are a given. Madam Chairman, this is the culmination when we see $100 billion of cuts in spending, in non-defense discretionary spending, spending on transportation that is necessary if our economy is to be competitive, spending on research and development that is necessary if we're going to be able to create jobs, spending on schools and education and housing that is necessary for our people, spending on job training so our people can work, spending on unemployment insurance so they can eat. All of these things must be cut in order that the wealthiest people have tax cuts, in order that the tax cuts for the oil companies not be disturbed. All of this is the culmination of a 30-year campaign by the Republican Party to starve the beast. Ronald Reagan's Budget Director, David Stockman, I believe coined the phrase ``starve the beast.'' He said, he pointed out that if you come to the American people and you say, We want to reduce certain services, we want less money for transportation, the voters don't go along with that. If you say, We want less money for education, the voters don't go along with that. And if you say, We want less money for most things that are necessary, the voters won't say yes. But if you deliberately create a crisis, if you deliberately create a situation where there is no money, by cutting taxes of the rich so that they don't pay their fair share, you can create a crisis, and then you come and say we can't afford this. We've got a budget deficit. We must reduce unemployment insurance. We must reduce schools and housing and transportation and the competitiveness of our economy and the jobs available for our people. We must reduce them because there is no money. Then you can get away with it. And that is the plot that the Republican Party has been advancing for 30 years, and today we are seeing the culmination of that. Today and in this Congress. But remember what creates this necessity for these drastic cuts: The fact that we are unwilling to restore the tax cuts for the richest portion of our population. We are unwilling to take away the tax breaks for the oil companies. We are unwilling to tax the large corporations as we used to. We are unwilling to have the rich pay as high a percentage of their income in taxes as their secretaries. That's what's really at stake here. But this debate is structured by the rules which have been imposed on this House that prevent us from bringing this all together in one debate. Unfortunately, it is not in order. The chairman ruled it's out of order if someone proposes to pay for a restoration of unemployment insurance by increasing a tax or by cutting war funding because it's not in the same bill. It's not in the same section of the bill. So the American people's representatives have our hands tied because we are prisoners of the construct constructed by the Republican Party that says, let the rich have their tax cuts, let the oil companies have their tax breaks, let the multinational companies export the jobs overseas and pay no taxes. We'll pay for it by robbing the American people of transportation, of highways, of bridges, of unemployment insurance, of job creation, of education. That's what we're dealing with here, and the debate should be looked on in the context of the culmination of that 30-year plot by the Republicans which we're seeing, which was freely admitted by a lot of people, starting with Ronald Reagan's budget director who started it. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, I'd like to just point out, of course what the gentleman from Massachusetts says is absolutely correct.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the extension of these provisions when the House has done nothing to consider them or to consider possible reforms or even to hold a hearing or a markup. The three sections scheduled to sunset are all troubling, and I hope that we will have the opportunity to review them carefully before they come before the House again. Section 215 authorizes the government to obtain ``any tangible thing,'' such as library or business or medical records, if ``there are reasonable grounds to believe that they are relevant'' to a foreign intelligence or international terrorism investigation. Before the enactment of section 215, the government had to show ``specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain'' is a foreign agent or a terrorist. Section 215 allows the government to delve into the personal records of someone even if there is no reason to believe that that person has anything to do with terrorism. This poses a threat to individual rights in the most sensitive areas of our lives, with little restraint on the government. Section 206 provides for roving wiretap orders, supposedly to catch up with technology, but these orders identify neither the person to be tapped nor the facility to be tapped. This is, for all practical purposes, a general grant of authority to wiretap anyone anywhere that the government wants. They should either have to identify either the person or, because of modern technology, the facility. But one or the other. There are almost no limits to this authority and no requirement that the government name a specific target. This is akin--very similar--to the British general writs of assistance which engendered the first colonial outrage that led to the American Revolution. Here we are coming full circle. Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the so-called ``lone wolf provision,'' permits secret intelligence surveillance of people who are concededly not affiliated with a foreign government or organization. It provides the government with the ability to use secret courts and other investigative tools that are unacceptable in a domestic criminal investigation, as if we were dealing with a foreign government or entity. According to government testimony, this provision has never been used because you can use the normal criminal provisions if you suspect someone of planning mayhem or terrorism or anything else. Surveillance of an individual who is not working with a foreign government or organization is not what we normally consider or understand as foreign intelligence. There may be good reasons for the government to keep tabs on such people, but that is no reason to suspend all of our laws under the pretext that it is a foreign intelligence operation. While some have argued that each of these authorities remain necessary tools in the fight against terrorism, I believe we should not miss the opportunity to review the Patriot Act in its entirety, including the 14 sections that were sunsetted that are now permanent that many of us opposed making permanent at the time and thought should continue to be sunsetted so we could review them from time to time. We should examine the act to see how it's working, where it's been successful, where it's failed, where it goes too far, and where it poses threats to our liberties. That's the perfect of sunsets; and to extend the sunsets without review undermines that purpose. There is another law that is allied to this that also deserves careful review, the National Securities Letters Reform Act. I have introduced legislation which would better protect civil liberties while ensuring that NSLs remain a useful tool in national security investigations. I hope we can work to strike that balance in a responsible and effective manner, but the record of the abuse of the NSL authority is too great for the Congress to ignore. I was encouraged to see some of my Republican colleagues across the aisle last week vote ``no'' on the extension. It shows a healthy skepticism of unrestrained government power to spy on people in the United States. That is the essence of opposition to unchecked government power. That value should not be a partisan one. I hope to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to restore our traditional respect for the right of people to be secure from unchecked government intrusion. That's why we have the Fourth Amendment. I hope we will be able, after this vote, to examine carefully the way these provisions have been used or abused and to look at ways to reform the law in light of experience. That was the purpose of sunsets, and I hope we can take advantage of that opportunity.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to this extension of the expiring provisions of the Patriot Act and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. I cannot support this extension when the House has done nothing to consider these provisions, or possible reforms, or even to hold a hearing or a markup. While in the past, Members have had the opportunity to receive classified briefings, we have dozens of new Members who have received no such briefings. Section 215 authorizes the government to obtain ``any tangible thing'' relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is no showing that the ``thing'' pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities. It is sweeping in scope, and the government is not required to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before undertaking investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy, including the records of what he has read in the library. Congress should either ensure that things collected with this power have a meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity or allow the provision to expire. Section 206 provides for roving wiretaps which permit the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. This is supposedly to update the law to deal with portable cell phones and the like and other modern technology, but it goes too far. Without the necessity to specify either the person or the facility to be tapped, this is, for all practical purposes, a general grant of authority to wiretap anyone and anywhere the government wants. There are almost no limits to this authority and no requirement that the government name a specific target. This is very akin to the old British general Writs of Assistance which engendered the first colonial outrage that led to the American Revolution. Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the so-called lone wolf provision, permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-U.S. persons whose are concededly not affiliated with a foreign government or organization. According to government testimony, this provision has never been used, yet it remains on the books. It has never been used because there is ample other authority to do that in any event. Surveillance of an individual who is not working with a foreign government or organization is not what we normally understand as foreign intelligence. There may be many good reasons for government to keep tabs on such people, but that is no reason to suspend all our laws under the pretext that this is a foreign intelligence operation. While some have argued that each of these authorities remain necessary tools in the fight against terrorism and that they must be extended without any modifications, others have counseled careful review and modification. Some have even urged that we allow some or all of these authorities to sunset. I believe we should not miss the opportunity to review the act in its entirety, to examine how it is working, where it has been successful, where it has failed, where it goes too far, and where it may need improvement. That is the purpose of sunsets, and to extend it without review undermines that purpose. I have also introduced the National Security Letters Reform Act, which would make vital improvements to the current law in order to better protect civil liberties while ensuring that NSLs remain a useful tool in national security investigations. I hope we can work to strike that balance in a responsible and effective manner, but the record of the abuse of the NSL authority is too great for the Congress to ignore. I realize the majority has the votes to extend these provisions. I hope we will be able, after this vote, to examine carefully the way these provisions have been used or abused, and to look at ways to reform the law in light of experience. That was the purpose of sunsets, and I hope we can take advantage of that opportunity.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Republican effort to deny 32 million Americans health care, to deny millions of middle class Americans the ability to get health care insurance if they have preexisting conditions and to drive up our national debt by an additional $1.4 trillion over the next 20 years. The Affordable Care Act will stave off the 55 percent of personal bankruptcies caused by health care emergencies. By banning rescissions, banning the preexisting conditions insurance bar, banning annual and lifetime coverage caps and capping annual out-of-pocket expenses, this law ensures that nobody will go broke because they get sick. The bill will save the lives of the approximately 45,000 Americans who now die every year because they lack health insurance. For America's seniors, the Affordable Care Act strengthens the Medicare program. Seniors will no longer pay out of pocket for preventive services; and the cruel doughnut hole, which forces seniors to choose between taking their drugs or going without, will be closed. And owners of small businesses will get billions of dollars in tax credits to help them provide health coverage to their employees-- unless, of course, the Republicans are successful in enacting a tax increase on small businesses by repealing the law. We did all this and more while reducing the deficit by what CBO now estimates will be $230 billion in the first 10 years and $1.2 trillion in the next 10 years. The Republicans say the bill is an unprecedented or unconstitutional expansion of constitutional power. They are wrong. There is nothing radical, dangerous, or unconstitutional about the act. We have the power to enact this comprehensive plan, including its minimum coverage requirement under the commerce, necessary and proper, and general welfare clauses of article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. Similar attacks were levied against the Social Security Act of 1935, saying it was unconstitutional for the same reasons. Those arguments were unsound and rejected then and will fare no better today. Indeed, leading Republican lawmakers championed individual mandates as part of their Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993 introduced by Senator Dole and Senator Chafee. The requirement of individual participation was valid then, and it is valid now. For all of these reasons, I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this misguided repeal bill. Mr. Speaker, following is my statement in its entirety: I rise in opposition to the Republican effort to deny 32 million Americans health care, to deny millions of middle-class Americans the ability to get health care insurance if they have pre-existing conditions, and to drive up our national debt by an additional $1.4 trillion over the next 20 years. Last March, I had the distinct pleasure and honor of voting for the Affordable Care Act, which achieves many of the goals I have been fighting for my entire adult life. The Affordable Care Act will stave off the 55 percent of personal bankruptcies caused by health care emergencies. By banning rescissions, banning the ``pre-existing conditions'' insurance bar, banning annual and lifetime coverage caps, and capping annual out-of-pocket expenses, this law ensures that nobody will go broke because they get sick. When fully implemented more than 32 million additional Americans will have access to health care coverage. This translates into saving the lives of the 45,000 Americans, who now die every year because they lack health insurance. In addition, the Affordable Care Act extends greater rights and benefits to women. No longer can insurance companies discriminate against women by charging women higher rates than men for the same coverage. No longer will women be denied coverage because insurance companies consider pregnancy, C-sections, and being the victim of domestic violence to be pre-existing conditions. No longer will women go without critical maternity care coverage, access to mammograms, and other key preventive care services--services that will be available without co-pays and deductibles. Ending these routine, disgraceful, and patently unfair practices are a tremendous victory for women and children. For America's seniors, the Affordable Care Act strengthens the Medicare program. Seniors will no longer pay out of pocket for preventive services, and the cruel donut hole, which forces seniors to choose between taking their drugs or going without, will be closed. And by cracking down on fraud and waste, the Act ensures that those who seek to take advantage of our seniors and steal from the Medicare program will no longer have a free ride. The Affordable Care Act also benefits America's young people. Often without the option of employer-based health insurance, young people now can stay on their parents' health plans until their 26th birthday. And owners of small businesses will get billions of dollars in tax credits to help them provide health coverage to their employees-- unless, of course, the Republicans are successful in enacting a massive tax increase on small businesses by repealing this law. We did all this and more while reducing the deficit by what CBO now estimates will be $230 billion in the first ten years, and $1.2 trillion in the next ten years. Mr. Speaker, when our predecessors passed similarly historic laws such as Social Security in 1935 and Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, they knew the measures would require further consideration. In the years since those crucially important programs were signed into law, Congress has made, and will continue to make, improvements to those programs. And that is the key--to make improvements to the law. Instead of spending our time looking for ways to build on and perfect the health care reform law, Republicans want to take a sledgehammer to it, to throw out everything, without any consideration at all. No matter that our economy still needs our attention. No matter that millions of Americans remain out of work. The Republicans say the bill is an unprecedented or unconstitutional expansion of Congressional power. They are wrong. There is nothing radical, dangerous, or unconstitutional about the Act, through which Congress is regulating the vast interstate health and insurance markets in a number of ways that protect the American people. We have the power to enact this comprehensive plan, including its minimum coverage requirement, under the Commerce, Necessary and Proper, and General Welfare clauses of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Similar attacks were levied against the Social Security Act of 1935. They were unsound and rejected then and will fare no better today. We require citizens to participate in programs--like Medicare and Social Security--when necessary to accomplish an objective wholly within Congressional powers, and there simply is nothing so surprising or severe in requiring similar participation--by requiring that those who can obtain insurance do so or pay a tax penalty--in our comprehensive framework for health care reform. Indeed, leading Republican lawmakers championed individual mandates as part of their Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993. The requirement of individual participation was valid then, and it is valid now. For all of these reasons, I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote NO on this misguided repeal bill, and instead, to say ``yes'' to guaranteeing health care for 32 million more Americans. To say yes to enabling millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions to obtain health insurance. To say yes to ending gender rating and rescissions. To say yes to allowing parents to cover their adult children on their health care plans. To say yes to strengthening Medicare for our seniors. To say yes to growing our economy by supporting small businesses. To say yes to reducing our deficit.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. ``The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State.''

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, let me first thank everyone who has worked on this bill and say the Senate passed this bill a little while ago unanimously. The most conservative Senators, Senators Enzi and Coburn, supported it, and I hope we can do the same. Nine years ago, Madam Speaker, the heroes of 9/11 ran into the buildings, they rushed into the burning buildings, and they worked in a toxic environment for weeks and months. They have suffered for that. They have suffered for their service to this country by getting sick, by dying, by being sick. It is now up to us to see that the United States honors its heroes, that the United States does not turn its back on those who served us. When we pass this bill, we will answer the question of whether the United States honors its heroes, and whether the United States honors itself. Let us pass this bill, let us redeem the honor of the United States after all these years, let us show the world that the United States looks after its own. That's what this bill is. I urge everyone to support it.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to oppose this bill, however the rule comes out, for several reasons. Number one, if this bill passes, we will extend the upper income tax cuts at a cost of increase in the deficit by $700 billion over 10 years. We're told that in 2 years it will expire. Of course, we also know that our friends on the other side of the aisle will try to extend it in 2 years, and in 2 years, we'll have the same kind of coercion. We'll be told that if we don't extend the upper end tax cuts, the middle class tax cuts will also expire, and I don't see any reason to believe that we wouldn't succumb to that coercion 2 years from now in an election year as much as we're doing now in this bill. So I believe that passing this bill, in effect, would make permanent the upper end tax cuts which, in effect, would generate a $700 billion increase in the deficit, which would make it almost impossible to fund housing, education, everything else we need. It would be the culmination of the 30-year Republican effort to starve the beast, to deliberately create huge deficits in order to provide the political cover for reducing expenditures in housing, education, Social Security, and Medicare. Secondly, I hope that Mr. Pomeroy's amendment on the estate tax will pass, but if it doesn't, that's another problem. Thirdly, Social Security. We are going, in this bill, to provide for a 1-year tax reduction of 2 percent in the Social Security tax. That will cost us $120 billion in 1 year, which will be replenished from the general fund, but we know perfectly well that, politically, once you make that tax cut, it will be impossible to restore it, which means it will be $120 billion a year forever taken away from Social Security but replaced by the general fund. Now, the conservatives have always told us we have to reduce Social Security, increase the retirement age, reduce benefits, because it contributes to the deficit. We said, no, it doesn't contribute to the deficit. Social Security is walled off; it has nothing to do with the deficit. But now it will be put right in the middle of the deficit debate, and it will cost the general fund $120 billion a year, $1.2 trillion over 10 years, and we'll be told you've got to reduce Social Security benefits, increase the retirement age because of the deficit, and it will be in the middle of the deficit debate. We will be told a year or two or three from now, by the way, we'll only replace $100 billion of the $120 billion we have taken away from Social Security this year because we need the money for education and housing and something else, and we should not want to be in that position. FDR decided in 1935 that Social Security would be supported by its own tax, by its own situation of people paying into it year after year so they take it back when they retired. Now we are going to take some of that money away, and we're going to say the general fund will support it. FDR knew that by setting up Social Security as self- financing, it would be difficult to abolish or to reduce. This undoes that genius by the New Deal and puts Social Security at great risk, and, accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this bill.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, like many Members of the House, I have long considered Charlie Rangel a friend and a great public servant, but that is not before us now. We must now consider a report from the Ethics Committee finding that Mr. Rangel violated the rules of the House and recommending that he be censured for that. I do not disagree that he violated the rules of the House in serious ways; but under our standards and precedents, his conduct merits a reprimand, not a censure. In his actions, Mr. Rangel showed carelessness, poor judgment, and a severe disregard for the rules of the House. Some sanction is necessary and appropriate, but our precedents command a reprimand, not a censure. Censure has been reserved for corruption, personal corruption, improper personal financial gain and intent to gain money, or sexual misconduct. None of that is present here. You heard the discussion of people who were censured for personal financial gain, for bribery, for lying to the committee, such as Messrs. Wilson and Diggs and people like Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Hansen who committed severe infractions but were reprimanded. In this case, the staff director and chief counsel of the Ethics Committee said he saw ``no evidence of corruption.'' Further, he admitted he did not believe Mr. Rangel was trying to enrich himself. What happened according to the chief counsel and the finding of the committee was that Mr. Rangel was overzealous in his advocacy for City College and sloppy in his financial dealings. Neither overzealousness nor sloppiness merits censure. While not as severe as censure, reprimand is a very serious punishment. If passed in this case, it would reflect the collective judgment of the entire House that the conduct of Mr. Rangel was wrong and deserves a serious sanction. The decision by the Ethics Committee to recommend censure was based, it said, on the ``cumulative nature of the violations'' and ``because the 11 violations committed by Representative Rangel on a continuous and prolonged basis were more serious in character, meriting a strong congressional response rebuking his behavior.'' What this ignores, however, is that eight of the 11 separate counts all stemmed from just one factor: Mr. Rangel's belief that certain advocacy for City College, an institution in his district, amounted to constituent service and therefore constituted official action. Second, Mr. Rangel did not, as Mr. Bonner said, fail to pay taxes for 17 years. Of course he paid taxes, and filed every one of those years. He did fail to report some income from a villa he owned.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. He did fail to report some income because he mistakenly believed that the income which was plowed back into the mortgages from which he never saw a check was not reportable. This was wrong. But it was one ongoing error, not cumulative and not a continuing error. I ask my colleagues to consider all of this. A reprimand is a serious punishment that reflects our precedents and standards. That will reflect credibly on the House. A censure, a punishment never previously imposed for this level of violation of House rules with no adequate explanation for the sudden change in standards offends one's sense of fair play and therefore does not reflect credibly on the House.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, Steve Solarz served the people of Brooklyn in this House from 1975 to 1992. He served with distinction, boundless energy, great intellect, and a true passion to pursue justice. I have had the privilege of representing a large portion of Brooklyn that was once his district, and I can attest that he is still fondly remembered and admired by the people of Brooklyn. He was also a vigorous advocate for our communities close to home and for human dignity around the world. Steve was a member of the historic Watergate class of 1974, and he very soon became one of the leading voices in Congress on foreign affairs. As chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, he was one of the architects of legislation imposing sanctions on the apartheid government of South Africa. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs, he led the investigation that exposed the corruption of the Marcos Government in the Philippines, where he is still revered for having steered U.S. policy away from support of that brutal and corrupt government and in support of true democratic change, which resulted in the election of Corazon Aquino. Israel never had a better friend in the Congress than Steve Solarz. That commitment was more than just a personal one. He was one of the architects of the plan which was finally adopted by the United Nations to end the bloody war in Cambodia, which brought an end to the notorious killing fields. Steve's dedication to religious liberty had a profound effect on our legal system. In response to the Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith, he drafted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which restored the application of strict scrutiny to governmental burdens on the free exercise of religion. On a more personal note, Steve Solarz was a mensch. He leaves behind friends and colleagues who will miss him very much. Our country is a better place because of his commitment to public service. The people of the world have lost a tireless advocate for freedom and democracy. I want to extend the condolences of this House to Nina Solarz, to their children--Randy Glantz and Lisa Prickett--and to their families. The Nation shares in their loss and wishes them well. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember an outstanding public servant, Congressman Stephen J. Solarz, who passed away last night. Steve served the people of Brooklyn in the House from 1975 to 1992, with distinction, boundless energy, great intellect, and a true passion to pursue justice. I have had the privilege of representing a large portion of Brooklyn that was once in his district, and I can attest that he is still fondly remembered and admired by the people of Brooklyn. He was always a vigorous advocate for our communities close to home, and for human dignity around the world. His passing is a great loss to the Nation, but also to people around the world who saw in him the best of what the United States has to offer; a country fully engaged with other nations in the effort to bring peace, human rights, and freedom to every corner of the globe. Steve Solarz served in the New York State Assembly from 1968 until he was elected to the House of Representatives as part of the historic Watergate class in 1974. He very soon became one of the leading voices in Congress on foreign affairs. He was respected by his colleagues for his breadth of knowledge and his insight into some of the most vexing international issues. As Chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, he was one of the architects of legislation imposing sanctions on the Apartheid government of South Africa. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs he led the investigation that exposed the corruption of the Marcos government in the Phillippines, where he is still revered for having steered U.S. policy away from support of that brutal and corrupt government, and in support of true democratic change which resulted in the election of Corazon Aquino. Israel never had a better friend in the Congress than Steve Solarz. That commitment was more than just a personal one. He understood the importance of the U.S.-Israel alliance to our national interests in a way that few others did. When he spoke, it was both from the heart and from the head. I think that is why he was often so persuasive. He was one of the architects of the plan, finally adopted by the United Nations, to end the bloody war in Cambodia, which brought an end to the notorious killing fields. He also used his expertise to help people on a very personal level. He managed to negotiate with the Asad government of Syria the right of Syrian Jewish women to emigrate to the United States because there were no Jewish men in Syria for them to marry. The freedom he won for the ``Syrian Brides'' is still remembered fondly in New York's Syrian Jewish community which I now represent. His dedication to religious liberty had a profound effect on our legal system. In response to the Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith, he drafted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which restored the application of strict scrutiny to governmental burdens on the free exercise of religion. Although later gutted by the Supreme Court with respect to the states, it remains the law of the land at the federal level. Less well known was the so-called ``Yarmulke Bill,'' which he introduced in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Goldman v. Weinberger, in which the Court held that Americans serving in uniform had no religious right to wear even non-obtrusive religious articles such as a yarmulke. The bill eventually passed over vocal opposition from the Reagan administration, and remains the law of the land. In these endeavors, he managed to bring together a diverse coalition of religious and civil liberties organizations from across the spectrum; from the American Civil Liberties Union, to the National Association of Evangelicals. As a son of Brooklyn, who never forgot where he came from, he was always active in the life of the neighborhoods he represented. Although not as well known as his more high profile accomplishments, he fought for Brooklyn's working waterfront as a member of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. He shepherded through the reconstruction of the historic beach at Coney Island. Whether people had concerns about local transportation issues, or the quality of their schools, Steve Solarz was always there fighting for his neighbors. Even after leaving office, Steve Solarz was a respected voice in international affairs. His vast knowledge and experience were of great importance to decision makers when grappling with some of the most complex and sensitive global issues. We will miss his wise counsel as we face an increasingly complex future. On a more personal note, Steve Solarz was a mensch. He leaves behind friends and colleagues who will miss him very much. Our country is a better place because of his commitment to public service. The people of the world have lost a tireless advocate for freedom and democracy. I want to extend my personal condolences to Nina Solarz, their children, Randy Glantz and Lisa Prickett, and to their families. The Nation shares in their loss, and wishes them well.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. On September 11, 2001, al Qaeda orchestrated the deadliest terrorist attack in American history, killing almost 3,000 people and wounding thousands more. The attacks created an environmental nightmare as hundreds of tons of every contaminant known to man and woman came into the streets and the canyons of Manhattan and Brooklyn. You can see pictures of this in front of us. Into this toxic crowd ran firefighters and police and other first responders. First responders came from all 50 States to aid in the rescue and cleanup of the subsequent days. The Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, despite ample evidence to the contrary, kept falsely proclaiming that the air was safe to breathe. It wasn't. The terrorists caused the environmental catastrophe, but the Federal Government compounded the damage by telling people that the environment was safe when it wasn't, and now thousands of people are sick and in need of special care. We have a moral obligation to treat those who became ill, and that is what this bill is all about. For 8 years, Representative Maloney and I, supported in a bipartisan basis by the New York delegation and others, have worked to bring this bill to the floor. Now it is finally time to pass it. Time and again as we moved this bill through the legislative process, we have adjusted it, reduced its size and scope, limited its cost, and made concessions to broaden the coalition and lower the cost to the taxpayers. We worked with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reopen the Victim Compensation Fund in a responsible way in order to protect contractors from liability so they would not find they sacrificed their businesses to serve their country. We even agreed to cap attorney's fees. On the Victim Compensation Fund, this House, indeed this Congress, passed the Victim Compensation Fund almost unanimously a week or two after 9/11. Unfortunately, people who should have been compensated by that fund could not be because their sicknesses did not become evident until after the fund closed. Had we known that they would become ill, we certainly would have included them unanimously. That is why Ken Feinberg, testifying before the Judiciary Committee, urged us to reopen the fund, which is one-half of this bill. Feinberg said in March of last year, ``It is truly ironic that many of these very individuals who have filed lawsuits seeking compensation are the same type of individuals who received payments from the 9/11 fund. Had these individuals manifested a physical injury before the 9/ 11 fund expired, they too would have received compensation without litigating.'' He went on to say, ``Reenacting the law establishing the Federal September 11th Victim Compensation Fund for an additional period of years in order to provide the same public compensation to eligible physical claimants could be justified on grounds of basic fairness.'' Now is our chance to right that wrong and provide that basic fairness of which he speaks. I know that some Members are concerned about the cost of providing the Victim Compensation Fund assistance and the health care for the survivors and first responders. Let me emphasize: This bill is fiscally responsible and balances the needs of our 9/11 heroes with fiscal restraints. It is completely paid for. We have achieved this by closing a tax loophole which allows foreign companies to evade U.S. taxes. Second, we have capped the funding level, capped the number of people who can participate, and capped the number of years the program can continue. We have consistently worked to reduce its cost, and in the month of July alone we brought the cost of this bill down an additional $3 billion. Now let me appeal to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I understand that some may have a problem with the offset, even though it is not aimed at U.S. companies and is simply designed to improve withholding of taxes that are legally due. I understand. But I have to ask this: Just consider for a moment what we are talking about. Balance that tax rate against the needs of our 9/11 heroes, needs that are so great, so raw, and so obvious, and let our moral obligation to the heroes of 9/11, our obligation, as Lincoln said, ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle,'' prevail. Let us do the honorable thing and vote for this bill. Mr. Speaker, the choice is simple. I will be voting today for the firefighters, for the police, for the first responders, for the survivors of the attacks. I urge every Member of the house to do the same. I want to thank Congresswoman Maloney, Congressman King, the New York delegation, the Speaker, the majority leader, the chairmen of the various committees, subcommittee chairs Pallone and Lofgren, and all the organizations like the State AFL-CIO from New York, the International Association of Firefighters, and the National Association of Police Organizations for their invaluable support for this bill. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, do the right thing. Do the moral thing. Do the only moral thing. Vote for this bill. I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I then yield the balance of my time to my partner for the last 6 years on this bill, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1674, I call up the bill (H.R. 847) to amend the Public Health Service Act to extend and improve protections and services to individuals directly impacted by the terrorist attack in New York City on September 11, 2001, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Maffei).