Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman makes a good point. If we were not splurging all of our money trying to get rid of the estate tax, we could put $40 million more into the Department of Justice. That would be preferable. But the fact is, we are limited to the amount we are, and I have to take an offset from somewhere. This $40 million will enable people not to lose their Social Security because their time limit runs out while they are waiting for the FBI background check. It will enable this country to be safer because we will find out about some would-be terrorists while they are still within the clutches of the law. That makes sense. Yes, it will take money away from the rest of the Justice Department. And the account that it will take the money away from will go from $669 million to $629 million, a 5.9 percent cut. Yes, we are cutting the rest of the Justice Department by 5.9 percent to fund this crucial area of the FBI. Now, the gentleman says that it is fee-based, that he asks for a report to the fee. But where is that report? If they increase the fees, if the FBI increases the fees, they are still taking the money from the other agencies within the Departments of Justice or Homeland Security. The immigration service would pay a bigger fee. Other agencies within DOJ that are asking the FBI for the background check would pay a bigger fee. It is all the same pot of money. So the question is, Do we want to be able to catch would-be terrorists and get their names by getting the background check on time? Do we want people who are legal immigrants to be able to get their citizenship processed and not wait 7, 8, 9, 10 years? Yes, it would be most preferable if we did not have to rob Peter to pay Paul. But because of what that side of the aisle is doing, we have to rob Peter to pay Paul. I submit we ought to pay Paul here and Peter can afford it better than Paul can, because we are reducing a $669 million account, which is an important account, by 5.9 percent; but we will get justice done on time. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, since the committee had the same language in last year's report, do we have any reason to expect the FBI will, in fact, change the fee structure this year?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases funding for the FBI by $40 million to conduct security background checks. Since the attacks of September 11, the FBI's National Name Check Program has remained dangerously underfunded and has accumulated a significant backlog of uncompleted required security checks. Backlogs in security checks requested by the Immigration Service have led to major delays in the processing of immigration applications and, therefore, to a very real national security risk. If some of these applicants pose a genuine national security risk, they need to be found, arrested and deported immediately. Instead, there is a backlog of over 116,000 applications for permanent residency in the New York district office alone awaiting FBI background checks. In fiscal year 2006, the National Name Check Program received 3.3 million requests for background checks, but it has only 125 people to process them and an anemic operating budget of $12.4 million. The program does charge fees, but the fee structure was set prior to 9/11 and falls far short of covering the program's cost. Program employees have to search FBI files, often manually, in over 265 different locations across country. Having to spend so much of its resource on background checks dilutes the FBI's responsiveness, limits information sharing, and hampers counterintelligence and counterterrorism work. People who are here legally seeking residency or citizenship are prevented from renewing work or travel documents while awaiting the okay from the FBI. Those receiving Social Security face termination of their benefits if they don't become citizens within 7 years, even though their citizenship applications cannot be processed while awaiting the FBI report. Last year, the committee included report language directing the FBI to conduct a review of the fee structure for background checks done for the Immigration Service. As far as I know, the FBI has yet to send this review to Congress. This year the committee report says it ``expects the FBI to work with these agencies to ensure that sufficient resources are made available to eliminate the backlog as soon as possible.'' ``The committee expects the FBI to set the Name Check fee at a level that adequately covers the cost to conduct requested background checks.'' This is not an adequate fix to this problem. Congress should do more than tell the FBI it expects it to do more. That is why I am offering this amendment. CRS estimates that $40 million is needed to eliminate the backlog. This amendment will enable the FBI to create a centralized records repository where all of its paper files can be located and to develop, design, implement the system to store its active files electronically. It will reduce the burdens on people who are here legally seeking permanent residency and citizenship, and it would get would-be terrorists out of America swiftly. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I must confess I am a little ambivalent about this amendment because the amendment seems to say that we should obey the law, and some people might get the implication if we don't pass the amendment that we are free not to obey the law. The amendment says that ``funds are prohibited from being used to engage in electronic surveillance in the United States except as authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or title III.'' Well, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act says that. It says that this title and title III shall be the exclusive, exclusive, that is the word used in the law, the exclusive authority for domestic surveillance, for domestic wiretapping. Anything outside of that is illegal. Anything the administration is doing outside of FISA and title III, by the terms of FISA, is illegal. Certainly we should obey the law. I will vote for this amendment because I can't imagine the House saying we shouldn't obey the law, although I hear some of that from the other side. The fact is that this entire program, insofar as it is done outside of FISA or title III, is by definition illegal because the law says so, period. Now, I just came from the airport, and I heard a little of the debate, with people saying, well, maybe it is too hard to get a warrant. Maybe the work that has to go on beforehand is too hard and takes too long to get a warrant, even 72 hours after the surveillance begins, which is what FISA says. Well, if that is the case, let the administration make that case and let us amend FISA. Remember why FISA was passed. FISA was passed because of tyrannical, illegal conduct by the FBI and by prior administrations that was considered by the Congress. After hearings and after revelations, they said, my God, we curtailed liberty in this country. We invaded the liberty of law-abiding, peaceful citizens under the cover of law, and we should never do that again; we are going to enact some safeguards. And Congress enacted FISA to be that safeguard. And to say if you want to do domestic surveillance, if you think someone is a Communist agent, in those days, or an al Qaeda agent today, here is the procedure by which you get the authority to wiretap that person. Should a known al Qaeda agent be wiretapped all the time? I would say, yes, but a court would say, yes, too. In fact, we provided in that law for a secret court. You can go get an exparte order on secret evidence in a secret proceeding, and you can even do it after the fact, 72 hours. Now, maybe it should be 96 hours or 5 days. Maybe someone could make a case for that. Let Congress change the law for that. But simply to say, the FBI tells us, the administration tells us that obeying the law is too difficult? I remember a few years ago hearing ringing phrases from Henry Hyde and a lot of other people about the rule of law. We should impeach a President because he allegedly violated the rule of law. And now we come to this floor and say ignore the law? The administration, if it is too hard, can ignore the law? The law says that FISA and title III are the exclusive authority for wiretapping in the United States, period. No ifs, ands, or buts. All this amendment does is repeat it. As I said, I am ambivalent about it because I don't know that we should have to repeat it, but apparently we do. So I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I would remind everybody that to vote against this amendment is to say we are endorsing the violation of the law. We don't care about the rule of law. We endorse the administration's illegal and extraconstitutional action and we are making ourselves complicit in that and there is no protection, because the President now claims the power to disobey any law under his inherent authority under article II as Commander in Chief. That is a power even George, III, didn't claim, to just disobey the law when he judges it necessary because of his being Commander in Chief of the armed services. He is Commander in Chief of the Armed Services, not of the United States. He is not Commander in Chief of the United States. He is not a monarch. No President should have the power to disobey the law or to set aside the law when he thinks it necessary. If he thinks changing the law is necessary, come to Congress, change the law, enact a change in FISA. I might support it; I might not. But Congress will work its will. Enact a change in FISA. Simply to say, as this amendment does, that no funds shall be used except in accordance with law, because the law says no electronic surveillance shall occur, that is the words, no electronic surveillance except as provided in this act or in title III. That is the law. That is what this says. If we have any shame at all, we should adopt this amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution because we should not be echoing the lies we have been fed to justify this cruel and deceitful war. We should not continue pretending that by fighting the war in Iraq we are advancing the war on terrorism. Our intelligence tells us that only 7 to 8 percent of those we are fighting in Iraq are Islamic terrorists. The other 92 to 93 percent are fighting a war for power between contending religious groups. There is no compelling reason to send our young people to die to determine how to divide the spoils between the Sunnis and the Shiites. We should be redeploying our resources to fight the real war on terrorism, going after Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, fighting jihadist ideas all over the Muslim world, getting the loose nuclear material out of the former Soviet Union before it is smuggled to al Qaeda to make nuclear weapons, screening all of the shipping containers before they enter our ports, and protecting our chemical and nuclear plants against sabotage that could kill tens of thousands of Americans. But the Bush administration and this Congress will not vote the funds to fight the real war against terrorism. And every reason we were given for invading Iraq has been shown to be false. Weapons of mass destruction. Not there. Saddam Hussein working hand in glove with al Qaeda. Not true. And the more information that leaks out, the more apparent it becomes that these were not mistakes, but deliberate lies. But does this Congress get to the bottom of this? Not this Republican Congress. This Republican Congress sees no evil, hears no evil, and speaks no evil when it comes to a war that has already killed 2,500 of our young men and women and promises to kill thousands more. This Republican Congress asks no questions about what we can possibly achieve that can justify the continuing slaughter. I ask you, if the President had gone to the American people and said, we must invade a country that poses no imminent threat to us, we must sacrifice thousands of lives in order to create a democratic government in Iraq, would we have agreed? I think not. As the President now says to us that we should continue indefinitely to expend American blood and treasure to support one side in a sectarian civil war, a side, moreover, that is increasingly cozying up to the mullahs in Iran who do pose a threat to us, should Congress continue to consent? I think not. This Congress should agree with the Out of Iraq Caucus. We should say enough already. Enough with the lies and the deceit and the evasions. Enough with the useless bloodshed. We should ensure the Iraqi people that we desire no U.S. military bases in Iraq. This Congress should adopt the Murtha resolution. We should adopt a swift timetable to redeploy our troops out of Iraq and bring them home and let the Iraqi oligarchs know they cannot depend on the United States forever. It is our crucial moment in American history to concentrate our resources on the real threats that face us around the world and at home and put an end to this bloody, senseless and diversionary war.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, spurious statistics don't help us get anywhere. The fact is, yes, section 8 is a higher percentage of the HUD budget because this Congress has cut down other programs. We have cut down CDBG by $500 million. So what does that prove? And the fact is that all this amendment seeks to do is to say not that more people should get more section 8 vouchers; I wish we could do that, and not that more people should get affordable housing, but simply to maintain our previous policy, that if you are demolishing low income housing you replace it with the same number of units. QED. And if the administration is so incompetent that we are wasting a lot of money because we are not administering the program properly, there is money slipping through its fingers because they are not administering the section 8 program properly, let them clean up their act. But the fact is the number of units should remain the same or go up. This amendment says, and the gentlewoman says we are all in agreement, that as many people as possible should be helped. Well, if as many people as possible should be helped, at least let's agree, and this amendment is the only way to do that, not to cut down the number of section 8 units, not to cut down the number of units available whenever we demolish existing housing. That is all this amendment does. Nothing else. And anybody who says that this amendment increases the availability of housing above the policy of one for one is not telling the truth. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I must correct the gentleman. That is not what it does at all. There are always, in any housing stock, there are always some vacant units because someone moves out on Monday, it takes a month to prepare the apartment for someone else to move in. It has always been the policy that you replace the number of units that you are tearing down. If you are tearing down 1,000 units, you get 1,000 section 8 vouchers. If you change the policy, such as HUD is now seeking to do, such as the bill is seeking to do and which this amendment opposes doing, then you are saying that if 10 percent are vacant because someone has moved out and someone else hasn't moved in yet, they are cleaning it up, that you replace 90 percent instead of the 100 percent. All this says is continue the policy we have always had of replacing units, not units occupied, because units occupied is always 80, 90 percent of total units because there are always people moving in and out. Someone died last week and so forth. There is no housing stock on earth 100 percent occupied 100 percent of the time. And if you look at 5 percent or 10 percent that are unoccupied now because three people died and five people moved and no one has moved in again, you are reducing the number of units. And all we are saying is don't do that. If you tear down low income housing, replace it one for one on the basis of the number of units. That has always been our policy. That has always been the law and all this amendment seeks to do is to keep it that way and not change it as the bill would do. I yield back.

Mr. NADLER. No. The other cosponsor had to go back to the committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, the explanation of this amendment that we just heard is exactly upside down. Exactly wrong and backwards. The fact is that our amendment would ensure that the level of housing assistance is maintained at the same level as previously; that it is not automatically reduced when public housing buildings are demolished or sold. It continues the same number of affordable housing units as previously. Every year we demolish several thousand units. Until January of this year, the policy always was if you demolish 100 units, there are 100 section 8 vouchers issued, so the number of affordable units in the community does not go down. In January, HUD put out a new regulation which said that we will replace the units under lease with new vouchers so that if 100 units are demolished but 10 of them were not occupied at that moment because people were moving in and out, they would only replace 90 vouchers. In other words, the number of affordable units would go down. The policy we have always had which this amendment seeks to continue, not to change, is that when you demolish public housing, you maintain the same number of units by issuing the same number of vouchers, not less, not more. Contrary to what the distinguished chairman said, this would not increase the number of vouchers issued, this would maintain it at the same level as we always have had; one-for-one replacement for all of the low-income housing demolished. The administration seeks to change that policy, first by HUD regulation last January that said we will only replace those actually occupied at that moment. So if 5 percent of the units are under repair or 5 percent of the units have people moving in and out, there is always some churning, we won't replace those. So the number will go down every time we do this. That is pernicious. It means, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, that if you want to demolish an overconcentrated housing or you want to privatize an existing section 8 building, what will replace it will be fewer units of subsidized housing. In the bill before us, the distinguished committee violated the rules of the House because they seek to take this policy initiated by HUD by regulation in January and by adding the words ``under lease'' to the bill, they would say in a broader perspective, in a broader universe than covered by the regulation, we would only replace occupied units. The Rules Committee said points of order against the bill are waived so we could not raise a point of order against legislating on an appropriations bill. An amendment to take out those words would itself be legislating on an appropriation bill, so it's a one-way racket. The committee can get away with it but we can't unlegislate from the floor. So this amendment is narrower. It, unfortunately, doesn't prevent the committee from doing what it is doing, which changes the number of units we are replacing to a fraction of those being demolished in some of the housing; but for the public housing at least, which the bill doesn't do but the regulation did, where the regulation said from now on we will only replace occupied units, not the total number of units, this amendment says no funds appropriated shall be used to enforce that regulation. That we can do. So the CBO scores this amendment as costing zero dollars. All it says is we can't use funds to implement that regulation. It doesn't change the amount of money appropriated for section 8 by a nickel. What it does say is we will not countenance a change by the department so that the previous policy, which we want to maintain, is if you demolish public housing, you demolish 100 units, you have to have 100 units to replace it, so the total amount of low-income housing in the community is not going down. They want to replace that by saying they will only replace the units occupied at that moment. So the normal churning effect, people moving in, people moving out, would demolish the number of units replaced. So this amendment would keep the existing system, the system that has existed for the last few decades, one-for-one replacement, and it is scored by CBO as costing nothing. I would urge the House to adopt this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase the appropriation for the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS program, or HOPWA, by $10 million. Frankly, this is a very modest amount. Earlier this year, more than 100 Members joined me and Representatives Ros-Lehtinen and Crowley in asking the Appropriations Committee for $424 million in HOPWA funding for fiscal year 2007. I am relieved that the President finally asked for a $14 million increase over last year in HOPWA funding, and I am very grateful to Chairman Knollenberg and Ranking Member Olver for meeting his request and funding the program at this level. But the sad truth is that this year's HOPWA level barely keeps up with inflation. Three years ago in 2004, HOPWA was funded at $295 million. That the program will see an increase in 2004 to 2007 of $5 million in 3 years is not enough even to meet inflation. Housing needs have grown faster than inflation. Adequately meeting the housing needs of all those living with HIV and AIDS would take over $2 billion. Nationwide, thousands of people are now on waiting lists for HOPWA-funded housing, and with 91 percent of HOPWA recipients having family incomes of less than $1,000 per month, program recipients simply cannot afford the shortfall. The costs associated with new AIDS treatments often force people to choose between essential medications to enable them to survive and the necessities such as housing. Without adequate HOPWA funding, AIDS patients will continue to flood our emergency rooms and our Medicaid rolls and will be forced to live on the streets. This HOPWA funding does not simply get people with HIV and AIDS off of the streets. Recent studies have shown that housing in many cases equates directly to HIV prevention because people with housing are much more likely to know their HIV status and, therefore, less likely to transmit the disease to others. Improvements in housing status also lead to lower rates of high-risk behavior, such as intravenous drug use, which can lead to the spread of the disease. HOPWA is an extremely fiscally sound program. It is locally controlled and provides maximum flexibility to States and communities to design approaches that best respond to local housing needs. In fiscal year 2006 alone, HOPWA funds will support the delivery of services to roughly 71,500 households in all 50 States. I realize that, given the record deficits that we have, funding HOPWA at the $2 billion level it should have is not realistic. The financial constraints that we face put us in an unfortunate bind. There is much room for improvement. I, again, thank the chairman and ranking member for the increase that they proposed, but given the scarce resources of this bill, a $10 million increase beyond that, which means we will have an increase by $5 million in 3 years, is I think more than warranted, and that is what this amendment is. I am grateful for HOPWA's increase this year, but I urge a further increase of $10 million, so it is a net increase of $5 million in 3 years. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. I regret to hear that, but I will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the amendment if necessary.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase funding for Section 8 housing vouchers by $70 million to enable an additional 10,000 low- income families to afford safe, decent housing. To offset this increase, the amendment cuts the Working Capital Fund for a poorly managed computer upgrade program. Even with the reduction, the bill would still provide $94 million in working capital funds for IT projects in eight accounts scattered around the bill other than the Working Capital Fund itself. We have a choice, Mr. Chairman. Do we want to help thousands of families obtain affordable housing, or do we think it is more important to have a somewhat faster computer upgrade in HUD? If we support American families, we should support this amendment. We all understand the budget is extremely tight and that many programs are facing cuts. Our amendment, therefore, does not seek to restore the amount to the amount that the President recommended, which is $144 million more than the committee recommends, it seeks merely to restore $70 million, or about half of what the difference is to what the President recommended. This is less than the bare minimum of what is needed. We have hundreds of thousands of families on waiting lists, waiting 8, 9, 10 years for decent housing for Section 8 vouchers. This amendment will enable us to provide vouchers to about 10,000 of those families. That is our choice. The Section 8 housing voucher program provides safe, affordable housing to approximately 2 million American families in urban and rural communities in our country. Those vouchers are often the only resource for low-income families confronted by our Nation's affordable housing crisis. Mr. Chairman, many Republicans support this amendment. We passed a similar amendment last year with Republican support. 141 Members have signed a letter in support of fully funding the President's request, which would be twice the size of this amendment. 225 Members, including 30 Republicans, voted for an essentially similar amendment last year. I urge everyone on both sides of the aisle to vote for this amendment. Finally, let me say that we may be told that the offset would leave no funds in the computer account. The fact is the committee has been very ingenious in squirreling away money in different accounts. Mr. Chairman, I have here a list of all of the places in the bill where money is squirreled away for these computers. There is a total of $194 million. With this amendment it would still leave $94 million for this purpose. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman. I urge everyone to vote for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would offer this chart for the Record. I am pleased to announce also that the amendment has gained the support of the AARP and the National League of Cities. Once again, the choice is, will we provide 10,000 families with safe, decent housing, at the price of slightly slowing down a computerization program for the bureaucrats at HUD? That is the choice. I hope everyone will vote yes on the Nadler- Velazquez Amendment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Programs descriptions Additional descriptions Amount Page/Line ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Public Indian Housing................ Tenant Based Rental $5,900,000 pg. 83 In. 14. Assistance. Public Housing Capital Fund.......... ............................. 14,850,000 pg. 86 In. 1. Community House and Development...... Housing Opportunities for 1,485,000 pg. 92. In. 4. People with AIDS. Home Investment Partnerships Program. ............................. 3,465,000 pg. 94 In. 22. Homeless Assistant Grants............ ............................. 2,475,000 pg. 97 In. 20. Housing Programs Project Based Rental ............................. 3,960,000 pg. 99 In. 24. Assistance. Housing for the Elderly.............. ............................. 1,980,000 pg. 101 In. 7. Housing for Persons with Disabilities ............................. 990,000 pg. 102 In. 5. Federal Housing Administration....... Mutual Mortgage Insurance 23,562,000 pg. 105 In. 6. Program Account. General and Special Risk Program ............................. 10,692,000 pg. 106 In. 22. Account. Management and Administration........ Salaries and Expenses........ 15,000,000 pg. 112 In. 25. Working Capital Fund................. ............................. 100,000,000 pg. 113 In. 16. Section 325.......................... Administrative Contract 10,000,000 pg. 133. In. 21. Expenses.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the fact is we have waiting lists in many of our cities of 8, 9, and 10 years for Section 8 vouchers. We could do much, much more than this amendment would do and shorten these waiting lists to 5 and 6 years. Mr. Chairman, it is wrong for low-income Americans to have to wait 8, 9 and 10 years for decent, safe housing. This amendment will go a little ways toward supplying that need. The chairman says that the committee's proposal funds all of the Section 8 vouchers. It funds enough Section 8 vouchers to continue a waiting list of 8, 9, and 10 years. Now, it is true the offset takes some money away from a computerization account at HUD, but it leaves $94 million for that purpose. The computerization at HUD can go a little more slowly, and 10,000 additional families will have decent housing. That is the choice. HUD can do, and do very well, with $94 million for this computerization program squirreled away in different sections of the bill as I have here outlined. But 10,000 families might not have to wait 9, 10 years for decent housing. Mr. Chairman, that is the choice in the amendment. That is why I urge everyone to vote for the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, while House Republicans plan to use the next couple of months trying to distract the attention of the American people away from their failures, House Democrats are focused on the American people's priorities. While Washington Republicans have allowed our dependence on foreign oil to increase over the last 5 years, House Democrats are committed to achieving energy independence in the next 10 years. We would do this by doubling the percentage of renewable fuels sold in America in 6 years, increasing the percentage of flex-fuel vehicles that run on ethanol or gasoline, and investing in biofuel research. While Republicans attempt to run from their fiscal record of turning a $5.6 trillion surplus into a $4 trillion deficit, Democrats continue to propose fiscally sound budgets that incorporate the pay-as-you-go policies that led to the record surpluses of the 1990s. The Democratic budget for the upcoming year would have balanced the budget by 2012, something the Republicans neglect to do in theirs. Democrats have solutions to the problems Republicans ignore. If House Republicans were really interested in solving our Nation's problems, they would stop the attempts to distract and would instead offer some new ideas.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?