Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mrs. Phyllis Miller upon receiving the Zella Butler Bronfman Award, presented by the UJA-Federation's Task Force on People With Disabilities and the J.E. and Z.B. Butler Foundation. Throughout her 25-year career, Phyllis Miller has worked tirelessly on behalf of people with developmental disabilities. She taught Judaic studies and Hebrew language to both special and regular education elementary school students, beginning in 1973 at the Armed Forces Center for English as a Second Language in Fort Knox, Kentucky. She later taught at Temple Beth EI Hebrew School in Springfield, Massachusetts; Hillel Academy in Passaic, New Jersey; and Yeshiva of North Jersey in River Edge, New Jersey In 1997, Mrs. Miller took a position as a Family and Child Advocate at the Board of Jewish Education of Greater New York, which she represents on the UJA Task Force on Disabilities. In this capacity, she assists people with special needs and their families in finding the programs and schools that best serve them. She also coordinates the Association of Jewish Special Educators and the Jewish Parent Advocate Coalition, through which she arranges in-service workshops for teachers and an annual Parent Empowerment Conference and Resource Fair for parents and social service providers. She also acts as the liaison to social service agencies and to families searching for special needs services. A graduate of Stern College at Yeshiva University with a degree in Psychology and Judaic Studies, Mrs. Miller has five wonderful children, one of whom is currently studying at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Phyllis and her husband, Michael, have done tremendous work in forging relationships within Jewish communities both here and in Israel. I am pleased to honor Mrs. Phyllis Miller for her many years of outstanding service, and to thank her for her extraordinary dedication to the developmentally disabled.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, what a deaf President we have. The American people told him loud and clear on November 7 that we want to change course in Iraq. He doesn't hear them. The Iraq Study Group told him loud and clear we must change course in Iraq and certainly not escalate; he doesn't hear them. His generals tell him that more troops won't do any good, will simply increase American casualties; he hears them, but he fires them and gets generals that will tell him what he wants to hear. There is nothing more clear today than that the civil war in Iraq is a civil war, that there is no function for the United States to try to help one side against the other in that civil war. Indeed, one could make the case we picked the wrong side, and that we must withdraw our troops. We must tell the Iraqis that we are withdrawing, and we are withdrawing on a timetable. You make a deal with each other, you live together or fight your own civil war, we are not going to do it for you. Mr. Speaker, for that we should not escalate. We should pass legislation in this Congress saying funds that are appropriated can be used only to protect the troops and to withdraw them.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, for the last 4 years I have worked to ensure that no shipping container should be put on a ship bound for the United States until it is scanned for radiation and density, and sealed with a tamper-proof seal. The 9/11 Commission insisted on better port security measures. Last year, along with Mr. Oberstar, I introduced the Sail Only if Scanned Act. We tried to insert into the SAFE Port Act, but the Republican leadership opposed this provision with near party-line votes in committee and on the floor. But now, Title V of this bill will implement the Sail Only if Scanned Act, and require that every container be scanned and sealed with a tamper-proof seal before being placed on a ship bound for the U.S. We phase in the requirement, within 3 years for large ports, 5 years for small. But it must be done. We must be serious about protecting ourselves against the terrorists. Studies are not enough. This bill finally takes the threat seriously. The cost to scan each container is only about $6.50. The startup cost to purchase and install the scanning equipment world wide is about $1.5 billion. Foreign ports can recover the cost by charging about $20 per container. Given the fact that it costs about $4,000 to ship a container from Asia to the United States and a container might hold $50,000 or $100,000 worth of goods, that is a drop in the bucket. This bill also includes critical provisions to strengthen aviation security, to distribute homeland security grants based on risk, and it will strengthen the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union. For years, some of us have been pushing to accelerate counter-proliferation programs. This bill will go a long way toward securing loose nuclear materials around the world. I congratulate the new leadership of this House for pressing this bill. I urge all my colleagues to vote for this and finally implement the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and make this country safer. Madam. Speaker, for the last four years, I have worked to insure that no shipping container should be put on a ship bound for the U.S. until it is scanned for radiation and density, and sealed with a tamper-proof seal. The 9/11 Commission insisted on better port security measures. Last year, along with Chairman Oberstar, I introduced the Sail Only if Scanned (SOS) Act. We then tried to insert it into the SAFE Port Act. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership opposed this provision, with near party-line votes in committee and on the floor. But now, Title V of this bill will implement the Sail Only if Scanned Act, and require that every container be scanned and sealed with a tamper-proof seal before being placed on a ship bound for the U.S. We phase in the requirement--within three years for large ports, five years for small. But it must be done. We know our port security system is vulnerable. The 9/11 Commission said the opportunities to do harm are as great, or greater, in maritime transportation than in our aviation system. Luckily, the Democratic Leadership is willing to follow through on our promise to scan 100 percent of shipping containers so that we can prevent nuclear weapons from being smuggled into the United States through our ports. We recognize that it is time for Congress to catch up to the rest of the World. In Hong Kong, the Integrated Container Inspection System (ICIS) pilot program has successfully achieved 100 percent scanning, proving that the technology works without slowing down commerce. Many other ports are already starting to purchase this equipment, and many in the shipping industry realize that it is in their best interest to secure their cargo before, G-d forbid, someone uses our ports to cause harm, and the system has to be completely shut down. We must be serious about protecting ourselves against the terrorists. Studies are not enough. This bill, finally takes the threat seriously. The cost to institute this system is minimal. It could be folded into the cost of doing business and the consumer would never even notice. The cost to scan each container is only about $6.50. The startup cost to purchase and install the scanning equipment worldwide is about $1.5 billion. Foreign ports can recover the cost by charging about $20 per container. This is a drop in the bucket given that it costs about $4,000 to ship a container from Asia to the United States, and that container might hold $50,000-$100,000 or more worth of goods. We waste billions of dollars in Iraq and on other Defense Programs, such as ``Star Wars,'' but we can protect ourselves against this very real threat to our port security system with virtually no cost to the U.S. Government. We must not wait to impose security measures until containers reach the United States. If there is a bomb inside a container, and it is detected in Newark, or Miami, or Los Angeles, it may be too late. Reading the cargo manifest is not enough. Trusting the shippers is not enough. We must verify the contents of the containers at the point of origin, before they are loaded onto a ship destined for America. This bill will do just that. This bill also includes critical provisions to strengthen aviation security, to distribute homeland security grants based on risk, and it will strengthen the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union. For years, I have been pushing to accelerate counter proliferation programs, and this bill will go a long way toward securing loose nuclear materials around the world. I urge all my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1 and finally implement all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution provides for just compensation where government takes property. On that there is general agreement. There is also agreement that the ability of government to take property must be strictly limited to a public purpose and that the power to take property must be used sparingly and judiciously. Those are not controversial points. This bill is something different, something radically and dangerously different. This bill goes far outside the bounds of the Constitution to reward big developers and polluters whenever local government tries to preserve the quality of life in our communities by controlling the spread of huge landfills or sprawling subdivisions or factory farms or adult bookstores. Under this bill, a developer could circumvent local government and normal State court consideration, drag our local governments into Federal court, and demand payment every time our constituents want to preserve their health or quality of life. The threat of Federal court litigation, expensive Federal court litigation, is real and troubling. One representative of the National Association of Home Developers said this bill would be a ``hammer to the head'' of every local official. That is what this bill does. It greatly expands the definition of a taking. It would require the government to provide compensation in cases where the Constitution does not. It would allow developers to game the system by arbitrarily dividing their lots to squeeze money out of communities. Should we have to pay someone to keep them from poisoning our drinking water or ignoring our zoning laws or opening an adult bookstore? That seems to be the claim of developers who want to fill in wetlands at will or build garbage dumps the size of small towns. Is it a taking for which me must compensate the developer if we make them pay their fair share of the cost of the new roads, sewers, water lines and schools that will be needed to support their new subdivision? Should local taxpayers have to pay a developer whenever any conditions are imposed on a developer before allowing him to move forward? That's what this bill does. Let's have no doubt this is a big developers' bill. My friend, the sponsor of this bill, has trumpeted the fact that the bill is supported by the home builders, the realtors, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, and the U.S. Farm Bureau. It is opposed by environmental organizations, the American Planning Associations, consumer organizations, and your mayors, your Governors and your attorneys general of the States. Which side are you on? One of the majority's witnesses at our hearing on this bill was Mr. Frank Kottschade, a major local developer who complained that he didn't get everything that he wanted from his local government. Another was an attorney, Joseph Trauth, who represents Wal-Mart, Home Depot and GE in zoning cases. Small developers. He is proud of the fact that he helped the Rumpke landfill in Hamilton, Ohio, expand by 65 acres. That is who the bill is for, not for homeowners who want to protect their homes and communities. Let me clear up some confusion. Many Members of this House were outraged by the Supreme Court's Kelo decision which dealt with the use of eminent domain to take private property from one person and give it to another private party in order to promote economic development. The distinguished chairman spoke of Kelo. This bill has nothing to do with Kelo and nothing to do with eminent domain. It is not about taking property. It is about regulating responsible use of property. It is about stopping the ability of local governments to pass zoning laws, environmental protection laws, to enforce them to protect the local residents against those who would pollute the environment, build every inch and fill our suburban towns with 200-story buildings. You have heard Kelo discussed in this debate because the real purpose of this bill is simply indefensible. This bill has to do with zoning, environmental protection, and environmental regulation. This is about protecting homeowners from abuse by developers and polluters. The bill, actually, is about stopping the ability of local governments to protect homeowners from abuse by developers and polluters. I would just note the irony that the Republican leadership the other day moved a bill that would limit the rights of religious minorities under the 1871 Civil Rights Act. This bill expands the rights of developers and polluters under the same 1871 Civil Rights Act and allows them to extort local communities. That is the Republican civil rights agenda. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with when a government exercises zoning power and the big developer disagrees with that, what happens. It says you go into Federal court right away, which is more expensive for the local government to defend, and which is unconstitutional, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, because you have to go through the State remedy. But second of all, it changes the substantive law to enable the developer to say that any reduction in his use of the property, that says you cannot have more than X number of houses on the property or you cannot destroy all the wetlands on the property, anything that will help preserve the local communities, all the regulations it would depend on to preserve property values, to preserve local communities, they are all gone because you have to pay for them and no local government is going to pay for them. So nobody is going to be able to go to their local zoning board and complain. They will have to go to the Supreme Court, which will not have time for them.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, this bill does not simply deal with sending cases to Federal courts. It deals with the substantive law to be considered there. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is important to get this debate back on track as to what we are talking about, not what we are not talking about, because the gentleman on the other side keeps bringing up matters that were not debated, that is not before us in this bill. This bill has nothing to do with Kelo. It has nothing to do with whether there should be compensation for a taking. If the government wants to take your house for a new highway, they have got to pay you. That is the fifth amendment. If the government wants to take your house to give it to somebody else to build something that they judge for public purpose, the Supreme Court said they can do it in Kelo. A lot of people do not like it. That is the Kelo controversy. That is not this controversy. This controversy has nothing to do with that. This controversy is saying the following: If local government passes regulations legislating land use, you cannot destroy a wetland; you cannot build a building more than 50 stories tall; you cannot build more than five houses on an acre, because it is a suburb and we do not want too much crowding; you cannot build a factory next to the houses; you cannot build a mine in a residential neighborhood. These are limitations on the use of property. It does not say you cannot use your property. It says you cannot build a mine here or you can only build 5 houses on that lot, not 2,500 houses. Should these kinds of limiting regulations that governments all across our land grant all the time in order to protect local homeowners, in order to protect local property values, in order to protect the quality of life in local communities, should these laws remain possible? This bill says they should not remain possible. This bill says that in two ways. One, we are going to drag the local community into Federal court where, contrary to the implications of the other side, it is a lot more expensive to litigate generally in Federal court than it is in a local court. So we are going to say that if the megadeveloper who wants to build 300 homes or 50 stories or 100 stories on that local lot next to your house, against the local zoning, he can take you right into Federal court, make you spend a lot of money and not go through the local process and not go through the local court process. That is very dangerous. That is why the proponents of this bill, the home builders, said this is a hammer to the head of local officials. It is intended to be a hammer to the head of local officials. And who do the local officials represent? The local people who care about their property value, that is who they represent. But we are going to put a hammer to their heads because to hell with the property values of our local communities; to hell with the local planned development; we do not want big developers to be inhibited from building 300 houses on an acre instead of only three or four or whatever the local zoning code says. Secondly, question: Is it a taking? The big developer buys 100 acres, has a 100-acre plot, two of them are a wetlands. The local government says or the law says you cannot build on the wetlands, you can only build on 98 of your 100 acres. The Supreme Court has always said you look at the totality of the property to determine whether that is a taking requiring compensation, and it is not, because you can build on 98 percent of your property, until this bill comes along and says no you cannot; you can subdivide the lots and if you want to protect that wetland, you have to pay for it. The bill also says, in effect, that if you want to say that you cannot build 100 houses on that property, you can only build 10, you have to pay the developer for the difference between 10 houses and 100 houses, 90 percent. Now, Mr. Chabot says, well, why should the government not pay the property owner if he cannot use his property. Well, the issue is not that. The issue is why should the local government, which wants to regulate or limit use of property in certain ways, have to pay the difference between what they say you can do with your property which they are not taking and everything conceivably you could do? If the answer is yes, no local government will be able to pay that, no local community can pay that, and you cannot have local land use regulations, you will have to have the 50 story building there because no one can stay the difference between a 10-story limitation in the zoning instead of 50 on every lot. So this is a question of whether you can have local language regulation, whether you can protect local communities at all. Finally, let me say that this bill is clearly unconstitutional because this bill says you go right into Federal court. In the Williamson decision in 1985, the Supreme Court held that a takings claim, a claim that you are taking property without due process of law, is not right for Federal court review if the property owner had not obtained a final decision from the appellate administrative agency and the property owner had not first filed the claim in State court to challenge the government action. The court held that these requirements are constitutional requirements, not statutory. We cannot give them the right to go straight into Federal court because the rule, the court said, is compelled by the very nature of the inquiry required by the just compensation, that is, the takings clause, because the fact it is applied in deciding a takings claim simply cannot be evaluated until the administrative agency has arrived at a final decision regarding how it will apply the regulation it issued for the particular land in question. Just 7 years ago, in 1999, the Supreme Court said again, a Federal court cannot entertain a takings claim under section 1983 or unless or until the complaining land owners are denied an adequate ``deprivation remedy,'' in other words has been denied State court review. So by forcing the case right into Federal court this is clearly unconstitutional. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) who has been instrumental in local development, planning efforts in local government.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I will concede that when we passed last week my bill to recognize Congress's support for a memorial at the World Trade Center site, after it had been held in committee for 2 years, that was not radical and dangerous.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the radical nature of this bill is that, as the gentleman from Michigan said, anybody picked up in Chicago can be subject to this bill. The President can determine unilaterally, look at paragraph 1 on page 3, that someone is an unlawful enemy combatant, or they can put the person before a tribunal, paragraph 2 on page 3, to decide if he is an enemy combatant. But you don't have to have a tribunal. A little later it says that military tribunals are not subject to the speedy trial rule. So someone can be determined by the executive branch to be an unlawful enemy combatant, someone in America, never have a trial, never go before a combat status review tribunal, never go before a military commission, have none of the rights everybody is talking about, and be held in jail forever. That is wrong. Secondly, the gentleman who was debating me before said soldiers have never had rights to habeas corpus. Certainly, if you pick up someone on the battlefield with a rifle in his arms, he shouldn't have habeas corpus. But if you pick up somebody in Chicago or New York or Los Angeles, who is to say that person is an unlawful enemy combatant? If you pick up somebody in Chicago or New York and say he is a murderer or a rapist and you want to hold him in jail until you can have a trial, you go before a judge and say, here is our evidence. There is some evidence that he is, in fact, a murderer or rapist to justify keeping him in jail. Under this, though, you say he is an unlawful enemy combatant and that's that. You never hear from him again. That is against all our traditions. It makes the President a dictator because someone who claims the power to put someone in jail forever, with no hearing, no evidence, and no recourse, is a dictator. And on page 93 of the bill it says that no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain habeas corpus, which is simply a request to say show me why you are holding me in jail, or to entertain any action saying, Hey, you are torturing me, about the condition of confinement. So you can take this person because the President says so, put him in jail, subject him to any torture or whatever, and whatever you write in the law doesn't matter because no court can hear the case. There is no one to bring the complaint before it. That is wrong and it is insupportable.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this bill says the term ``unlawful enemy combatant,'' means, one, a person who is engaged in hostilities or who is purposefully and materially supportive of hostilities against the United States; or, two, a person who has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combat status, review tribunal, or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President. In other words, you could become an unlawful enemy combatant because you are adjudged by a tribunal; or, one, because the President says so without a tribunal. Otherwise, this language has no meaning. That's page 3 of the bill. And if you look at page 93 of the bill, you find that no court shall have jurisdiction to hear an application for writ of habeas corpus or for an application relating to any aspect of the detention transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is an unlawful enemy combatant. In other words, anyone other than the citizen can be accused by the President or by any bureaucrat of being an unlawful enemy combatant, thrown into jail, and get no benefits. We have heard repeatedly that we are giving rights to terrorism. No, we are not. We are not trying to give rights to terrorists. We are saying that before someone is accused of rape or murder, you don't string them up; you first give them a trial and then string them up. And what they are saying, what this bill says is the President or his designee can designate someone as an unlawful enemy combatant, and, with no trial, no hearing, no status review, no nothing, throw them in jail forever. That is un-American. It is worse than what we rebelled against the King of England for in 1776, and we should be ashamed of ourselves.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into any of the torture aspects of this bill, but I do want to address the due process aspects of this bill. The distinguished chairman says we have created a system of justice with plenty of rights. Well, we have created two systems of justice. First of all, it doesn't have so many rights. You can appeal from the military tribunal, but the military tribunal can hear hearsay evidence and it can hear evidence obtained under coercion, if not torture. That is debatable. But the appeal is only on matters of law, not fact. So if it is determined that it is you and not someone whose name is similar to you who is the unlawful enemy combatant by the military tribunal, you can't appeal that decision. You can only appeal the process of that decision. The civilian courts have nothing to say on questions of fact. That is number one. Number two, much more important, the President under this bill has the ability, or Federal bureaucrats, for that matter, to point their finger at anybody in this country or abroad, as long as he is not a citizen, and say you are an enemy combatant because I say so; and because I say so, we are going to throw you in jail forever and you have no right to have a military commission. We may put you before a military commission, in which case what they were talking about applies. We may put you before a combat status review tribunal, in which case what they were talking about applies; but there is no right to do that. The bill specifically says that this whole process is exempt from the speedy trial requirements of law. So you may be in jail forever because your name was similar to the real guy. The bill assumes that we need not have the normal protections that we have had since the Magna Carta for people to at least say habeas corpus; bring the body, sir King, before the magistrate to make sure you have the right guy, to make sure there is some basis for holding this person and depriving him of liberty. There is no such right. This person can be in jail forever without ever going to a military tribunal, without ever going to a combat status review tribunal, without anything. This, Mr. Speaker, is irrelevant and unconstitutional. This is un- American. It is against all our traditions, to be able to say that people have no rights. It specifically says you have no right to go to any court, a military tribunal or a regular court, to protest that you are being tortured or to allege that you are being tortured. You can't get into court. If you are being tortured, too bad. No one knows about it. Secondly, you cannot go to court to say they got the wrong guy, because cops never make mistakes, no one ever makes a mistake. And, finally, the bill is also unconstitutional because it sets up two systems of justice. If you pick up two people in New York, one of them is a citizen, they go to the Federal court, and you accuse them of being unlawful enemy combatants, they go to the regular American system of justice. One is awaiting citizenship but is a permanent resident, he goes through this other. He has no rights and can be in jail forever. That is clearly unconstitutional. It is a denial of equal protection.

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

Mr. NADLER. It is supposed to be done by a tribunal under article V, but the President claims the power. We have never held such a tribunal.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate John Simpson on the occasion of his retirement from public service. John has worked as Director of Constituent Services and Senior Issues in the office of Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer since January 2006. Prior to this position, Mr. Simpson served as Director of Constituent Services for then Assemblymember Scott M. Stringer on the Upper West Side of Manhattan since 1993. John has assisted hundreds of constituents throughout Manhattan in landlord-tenant disputes, consumer issues, and every other problem in the spectrum. Mr. Simpson came to work in government after 40 years in private industry at the Hallen Construction Corporation where he worked after serving our country. He served in the United States Air Force from 1951-1955 and was recognized officially for Superior Efficiency as the Head of the Morning Report Unit. On the Upper West Side, Mr. Simpson is a leader in our community. He is an active member of the Church of the Blessed Sacrament on West 71st Street, where he is a co-leader in one of the soup kitchen teams. He is also a Vice Chairman of Community Services and member of the Board of Directors of the Ansonia Democratic Club. In 1999, the West Side Spirit named Mr. Simpson a ``Hero of the West Side'' for his work towards social justice. For his commitment to his community and his City, it is my privilege to congratulate John Simpson on his distinguished record of service and his retirement.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, with the approach of International Human Rights Day on December 10, I would like to take this opportunity to chronicle for the national record the life and work of a remarkable human rights activist, Jacob Birnbaum of New York. It is interesting to note that he was actually born on December 10, 1926. As December 10, 2006 will mark his 80th birthday, it is entirely appropriate that his work should be portrayed in the Record of the Congress of the United States. Jacob Birnbaum's immediate family fled the Nazis and settled in the United Kingdom. In 1946, following the end of World War II, the 19- year-old Jacob Birnbaum devoted several years to providing relief for younger survivors of the Nazi and Soviet totalitarian systems. From the young Polish Jews who managed to exit the USSR after the war, he became familiar with the iniquities of the Soviet system. This early experience fueled his later passion to mobilize American Jewry in the drive to rescue Jews from the oppression they faced in the Soviet Union. In the mid-1950s and early 1960s, he became involved in assisting people from the disintegrating Jewish communities of North Africa caught up in the struggles of their host countries for independence from France. Thereafter, traveling the United States, he decided to create a national student spearhead to activate the grassroots of American Jewry. Settling in New York in 1964, he set up his first student committee; then he concentrated on building a student core at Yeshiva University. Finally, he called a national founding meeting at Columbia University on April 27, 1964, followed by a large student demonstration four days later on the Soviet holiday May Day in front of the Soviet UN Mission. The authoritative Center for Jewish History has listed the demonstration as the beginning of the public struggle for Soviet Jewry. Mr. Birnbaum named the new organization Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry (SSSJ). Throughout the rest of the 1960s, under his direction, the Student Struggle continued working full time in response to the oppression of Soviet Jewry. As we know, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia led to the imprisonment of Soviet Jews behind the Iron Curtain. Jewish culture, Jewish religion and Jewish communal life were forcibly extinguished under the Soviet regime, which also indulged in numerous anti-Semitic manifestations. Even after Stalin's death, the Soviet kingdom of fear abated only slightly. The Cold War effectively continued to cut off the Jews of Russia and Eastern Europe from their co-religionists in the West. Nevertheless, expressions of outrage began to accumulate in the early 1960s, with a few pioneers leading the way. In April, 1964 the major Jewish organizations met in Washington, DC and an American Conference on Soviet Jewry was established. The same month, Mr. Birnbaum created the Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry for the purpose of fashioning a student spearhead to ``mobilize a tidal wave of public opinion.'' (First SSSJ Handbook) After the mass arrests of young Jewish dissidents on June 15, 1970, and after the Leningrad Trial of December 1970 with its death sentences, the National Conference on Soviet Jewry was created. The Greater New York Conference, under the direction of the young activist Malcolm Hoenlein, initiated the profoundly important Solidarity Day marches, modeled after Birnbaum's Jericho, Redemption, and Exodus Marches and rallies of the 1960s. Mr. Hoenlein is now the Executive Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Of great significance was the creation in 1970 of the Union of Councils for Soviet Jews, a coalition of non-Establishment regional groups, under the chairmanship of Dr. Louis Rosenblum, with whom Mr. Birnbaum had worked for many years. Mr. Hoenlein has publicly stated that he considers Mr. Birnbaum ``the father of the Soviet Jewry movement.'' Similar statements have been made by other major public figures such as Dr. Meir Rosenne, who worked closely with Mr. Birnbaum in the early formative period 1964-1967. Dr. Rosenne later became Israel's Ambassador to France and then to the United States. Sir Martin Gilbert, the official British historian of Winston Churchill, has made a similar statement. In May, 1965, Mr. Birnbaum was the first to testify before a Congressional Committee on the importance of utilizing economic leverage on the Kremlin. When the late Senator Henry Jackson initiated the legislation which finally resulted in the passage of the Jackson- Vanik Amendment in 1975, Mr. Birnbaum worked closely with the director of Senator Jackson's office, Dorothy Fosdick, and, of course, Richard Perle, who played a major role in the initiation and development of the legislation. The idea of placing economic pressure on Communist states to increase emigration played a key role in softening up the Kremlin regimes to make possible the Soviet Jewry demand to ``Let My People Go.'' For the first time, there was legislation to put teeth into the previous congressional humanitarian resolutions. From 1976 to 1986, Jacob Birnbaum conducted annual Most Favored Nation campaigns, based on Jackson-Vanik, to pressure Romania to increase emigration and release prisoners. He testified annually before both Senate and House committees. In the latter 1970s, Mr. Birnbaum enlarged his Soviet Jewry strategy. He expanded the slogan ``Let My People Go'' by adding ``Let My People Know'' (their heritage). The Kremlin had pulverized Jewish religious, cultural, and community life, and, in the 1960s, the Soviet Jewish resistance underground began to generate Jewish self-education cultural, religious, and Hebrew- speaking groups. Mr. Birnbaum conducted numerous campaigns for their protection, enlisting the aid of many Christian religious denominations. These efforts reached a high point when he organized and led a delegation of the Synagogue Council of America to meet with the Deputy Secretary of State and the Department's Human Rights Director, Warren Zimmermann, in September, 1985. Mr. Birnbaum's vision was partially realized with Malcolm Hoenlein's Solidarity Rallies in New York, and, finally, by the great national rally in Washington on December 7, 1987 on the eve of Gorbachev's meeting with President Reagan. Finally, in 1990, the Kremlin conceded and permitted a mass emigration which now totals two million (one million to Israel and one million elsewhere, mostly to the United States). This was no small accomplishment, and many people played a role in making it happen. In addition to the courageous work of Mr. Birnbaum, tribute ought to be paid to the pioneers and the national organizations which fought so strenuously for the liberation of Soviet Jews. The pioneers and the national organizations that Mr. Birnbaum asked me to publicly acknowledge for their support in this noble effort include: Morris Abram, U.S. human rights commissioner; Dr. Moshe Deeter, the scholar whose research fueled the early movement; Justice Arthur Goldberg; the distinguished theologian Rabbi Dr. Abraham J. Heschel; Senator Jacob Javits; NASA scientist Dr. Louis Rosenblum of the Cleveland Committee on Soviet Anti-Semitism; and Elie Wiesel, whose book ``The Jews of Silence'' was so influential. Furthermore, Mr. Birnbaum recalls the important roles played by colleagues in the following national organizations: Agudath Israel of America; Center for Russian Jewry with Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry, of which he is the founder and national director; Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish organizations; Greater New York Conference on Soviet Jewry, whose founding director was Malcolm Hoenlein; International League for the Repatriation of Russian Jews, founding chairman Morris Brafman; Senator Jacob Javits; Nehemiah Levanon, Israel Liaison Bureau for Soviet Jewry; the Lubavitcher Hasidic movement; National Conference on Soviet Jewry; Honorable Richard Maass, founding chairman; National Community Relations Advisory Council; Union of Councils for Soviet Jews, founding chairman Dr. Louis Rosenblum; and Ambassador Dr. Meir Rosenne. Following the collapse of the Soviet regime, Mr. Birnbaum spent a substantial part of the 1990s in combating anti-Semitic manifestations in former Soviet Central Asia, mostly in Uzbekistan, intervening via the State Department and enlisting Malcolm Hoenlein's aid in engaging the Uzbek Ambassador in Washington. In his 80th year, Mr. Birnbaum continues to support groups engaged in the Jewish education of former Soviet Jews and their children. For all of these reasons, the House of Representatives ought to honor the life and six decades of public service of Jacob Birnbaum and especially his commitment to freeing Soviet Jews from religious, cultural, and communal extinction. He is a true hero.