Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will summarize in a few words what we are really talking about. There are frivolous lawsuits. There are also novel legal claims which some may consider frivolous, but which, in the fullness of time, yield legal progress. The claims against Plessy v. Ferguson were considered frivolous at first, but eventually the courts accepted them, and so with many other arguments. The courts have Rule 11 sanctions available at their discretion. Any judge who thinks an attorney is being frivolous, is wasting the court's time, is wasting his adversary's time, can impose the sanctions today. The courts have not asked for further power. The courts have certainly not asked us to tie their hands and to mandate that they impose sanctions whenever they are requested and a technicality may have been violated. That is not justice, to enforce technicalities against the discretion of the judge. The Association of State Chief Justices are not in favor of this. The Judicial Council of the United States is not in favor of this. To mandate that attorneys be sanctioned on any technicality, to say that an attorney may not correct his own mistake, you must sanction him; to say that three sanctions on three technicalities means he cannot practice anymore is to tell attorneys, do not try novel legal arguments, do not argue new claims. To say that attorneys' fees, reasonable attorneys' fees, will be assessed mandatorily, whatever the judge thinks, whether he thinks or she thinks it is reasonable or not, is to say that you better not sue the big boys, that you better not sue General Motors, and a small business, a supplier cannot sue Wal-Mart lest the attorney violate some technicality and the attorneys' fees of Wal-Mart, with their 45 attorneys sitting there, be assessed against the small supplier. This is not justice. What this bill is, Mr. Chairman, is another attempt, another in a series of attempts, the class action bills, the various other bills we have had here, to close the courts, to close the courts to anyone who would try to hold giant corporations accountable. That is what this is. This is a bill that says, do not try to use the courts for civil rights, do not try to use the courts to sue large corporations. We are going to make sure you do not. We are going to punish you if you do, and we are going to make sure you cannot find an attorney who will take the case because they are worried about draconian imposition of draconian attorneys' fees. So I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. It should be rejected, because the courts ought to be opened to all people who need to use them. Otherwise there is no justice.

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, it is time for someone in the Bush administration to be held accountable for the leaking of the identity of a covert CIA operative. Washington Republicans are already attempting to minimize in advance the special prosecutor's findings. Anyone who does not believe leaking a CIA operative's identity is a serious breach of national security should listen to the words of our President's father, who served not only as President but as director of the CIA. During a speech at the CIA in 1999 he said, ``I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the names of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.'' That is the President's father, a former Republican President himself. While his son's administration is working in secret to destroy Joseph Wilson's name, it was the former President Bush who sent a letter to Wilson congratulating him for his service to his country and sending his sympathies that his wife's identity had been made public. President Bush should listen to his father. He should not condone these outrageous actions, should fire anyone involved, and hold them in utter contempt.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. I support increasing oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is a worthwhile goal, one that the recent scandals at these institutions and on Wall Street illustrate is sorely needed. And I support the creation of a budget-neutral Affordable Housing Fund. Indeed, that this kind of program should be created, given the proclivity of this Republican House of gutting programs for the poor, is nothing short of miraculous. However, I cannot support a program whose benefits come at the expense of the rights of nonprofit organizations. The provision in question would disqualify any nonprofit group that engages in voter participation activities, such as voter registration and get-out-the- vote efforts, from applying for a grant under the Affordable Housing Fund. This would apply even if the activities are non-partisan and even if they are paid for with non-federal monies. This provision would have a chilling effect on the Constitutional speech and association rights of all nonprofits. How can the Republicans, in good faith, claim to work with us on the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, and turn around and tie the hands of those groups who are trying to incorporate the disenfranchised into the democratic process? What's worse, this provision is entirely superfluous. Nonprofits are already prohibited from using federal funds to lobby. However, they are free to engage in lobbying and nonpartisan voter registration with non-federal dollars. This bill is a slap in the face to those groups who need this money most. What's more, this restriction only applies to non-profit organizations, not any for- profit entities seeking grants from the Fund. This bill also essentially bars non-profits whose mission extends beyond the provision of affordable housing. Many organizations develop and manage effective affordable housing programs alongside programs that provide food, closing, counseling, and other health and social services. Those who claim to work on behalf of the faith-based community should take a close look at this bill, and should watch this vote closely. By voting aye you are barring church groups from affordable housing funds if their primary mission goes beyond affordable housing. This is a typical piece of Republican legislation. Once again, my friends from across the aisle have poisoned legislation that would otherwise have received bipartisan support by picking on those who can least afford to defend themselves. I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill, and supporting the motion to recommit. We can and should do better.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, it seems that many Members of this House must really be dissatisfied with their jobs. Instead of being legislators, they seem to want to be Federal judges. Every Member, like every citizen, is entitled to express an opinion on any ruling by any court. That is what our system of government is about. What concerns me is that too many people here seem to think it is the job of Congress to order courts to decide cases certain ways or to consider issues that we want them to consider. The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) should read his own resolution. His resolution does not ask the Supreme Court to decide between the Ninth and Fourth Circuit views. It asks them to decide that the Fourth Circuit is right and the Ninth Circuit is wrong. It asks for a certain specific direction. We have considered bills here to take away certain Federal court jurisdiction because some Members do not like certain court decisions. We have heard threats against judges, against the courts, even statements by some who have said that they understand the murder of judges. This resolution is not binding, and it is probably as innocuous as they come; but it is part of a greater campaign of delegitimizing the independent judiciary, by implication our system of checks and balances and our system of government. Courts are supposed to rule on cases that come before them; to call them as they see them; to decide what the Constitution means as the court sees it, as Judge Roberts recently told the Senate regardless of popular opinion. That is their job. It is not our job to pressure the court to decide the case a specific way. If we do not like a court decision, we can amend the law. We can start a constitutional amendment if we disagree with a court decision. I am more than a bit concerned that Members seem to want to decide this case for themselves, but I am more concerned by the constant assertions by Members and some courts that the phrase ``One Nation Under God'' is not a form of religious expression. As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) mentioned, constitutionally the only way, since it is clear that we cannot have an establishment of religion, since the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court for the last 40 years says that we cannot mandate a prayer, that we cannot mandate that children in school should say a prayer, we cannot lead an organized prayer in a public school, as I have said repeatedly on this floor, there will always be prayer in the public schools as long as there are math tests, but we cannot have organized prayer where an agent of the State, namely the teacher, says this is the prayer you shall say. That is an establishment of religion, and it is against the first amendment. The only way around that is by saying that the phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance does not mean anything. It is a mere patriotic expression. It is not religious. It does not mean anything. I think that is sacrilegious. Frankly, it violates the Second Commandment: ``Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.'' Maybe we should have the Ten Commandments here, so people can take a look at it every so often. Frankly, references to God are inherently religious, and it is a sin to use the Lord's name for any other purpose. It is a religious expression with which not all people, including people of different religions, might agree. It is not out of the question that a court could reasonably conclude that this sentence is a religious expression, that it is inherently coercive when the government makes it part of every school day. That is what the Ninth Circuit did conclude. It is not the job of Congress to tell the court what to decide, and certainly not the job of Congress to tell the court that God is not religious. If God is not religious, then nothing is religious. I know most people will look at this vote and think it is a vote on whether or not you support the Pledge of Allegiance; whether or not you are loyal, in fact, to this government; or whether or not you are a person of faith or whether you support God. It is unfortunate that we have to politicize this issue in this way, and that is the real reason for this resolution, since it is totally innocuous, is not binding and has no effect. But it is even more unfortunate that there is so little respect for our system of government and such enthusiasm for delegitimizing the judiciary every time someone disagrees with a court ruling. That is very dangerous. The future of our Nation depends on the preservation of our system of government, the preservation of the independence of the courts, and not on the text of the Pledge that children are asked to recite in school.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. Particularly, I am a strong supporter of the section renewing the Violence Against Women Act, and a new program I've worked on, the Jessica Gonzales Victim Assistance Program, to better enforce protective orders. Today, together, we are making a big leap forward in protecting women who are victims. For many years domestic violence has been viewed as a woman's problem, but that is not the case. Domestic violence is a woman's problem, a man's problem, the community's problem. The time is long overdue for men to take a stand and say that domestic violence is unacceptable. On June 27, in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court held that the police did not have a mandatory duty to make an arrest under a court-issued protective order to protect a woman from a violent husband. The ruling ended a lawsuit by a Colorado woman who claimed the police did not do enough to prevent her violent husband from killing their 3 young daughters. The ruling said Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police enforcement of the protective court order against her husband. The heartbreaking details of this case show the desperate need for legislation. That's why I have drafted the Jessica Gonzales Victim Assistance Program, which will restore some of the effectiveness of protective orders. The Jessica Gonzales Victim Assistance Program would place special victim assistants in local law enforcement agencies to serve as liaisons between the agencies and victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking in order to improve the enforcement of protection orders. I support the underlying bill and the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana. This amendment betrays our core values by permitting, for the first time in the history of the Head Start program, religious discrimination in hiring. It allows taxpayer funds to be used in Head Start programs that discriminate against teachers and parent volunteers solely because of their religious beliefs. The bill does so by eliminating existing law that has, since Head Start's beginning, protected the people who teach our children against this most reprehensible form of discrimination. Religious discrimination in employment or the imposition of religious tests for federally funded employment in violation of the Constitution is reprehensible and an affront to our first freedom. Nobody should be able to hang out a sign that says no Catholics or Jews, no Protestants, no Lutherans, no whoever may apply for this federally funded job. Every religious denomination in this country can run a Head Start program and has. Every religious denomination can run programs and has. No one says they cannot discriminate in who the minister is or they do not want women as ministers or, for that matter, as janitors, but not with those positions funded by the Federal Government. That is what this amendment would breach. That is what is obnoxious. That is why it should be defeated. We have heard terrible allegations from the other side of the aisle, and from the administration alleging, during the recent confirmation hearings for Judge Roberts, that certain members of the Other Body have hung a sign on the Federal courts saying ``No Catholics Need Apply.'' While I continue to believe that this slur against conscientious Catholic members of the Other Body is blatantly false and slanderous, those making the charge, including the President and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, seem to understand that religious discrimination in employment, or the imposition of a religious test for federally funded employment in violation of the Constitution, is reprehensible and an affront to our First Freedom. I only wish they would apply that same principle to the people who teach our children. Head Start is an exceptional program that serves nearly one million children and their families. We know from experience that it works and works well, helping our children succeed educationally. Instead of promoting religious discrimination, we should be standing up for families and for our most vulnerable children by providing the necessary resources and accountability, to ensure that all children who qualify for the Head Start program can participate and succeed. It is time to match the rhetoric with action and leave no child behind. It is time to make good on the promise of this Nation that we are all created equal, that all children are entitled to a decent education, and that no one should ever have to decide between a job helping our children and their religious faith. No child was ever helped by governmentally funded and endorsed religious discrimination. That is not what this country is about, and it is not befitting of a nation dedicated to liberty and justice for all. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, to stand up for our values of religious equality.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an extraordinary woman, Dr. Amanda Baden, who is an outstanding example of someone who has made a critical difference in the lives of children through work on adoption issues. Dr. Baden, a Licensed Psychologist and Assistant Professor at Montclair State College, is my congressional district's Angel in Adoption. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the gala honoring her, so I hope to honor her now. Dr. Baden's commitment to adoption issues is rooted in her own history: She was born in Hong Kong and adopted as an infant by a couple from New York. She has used her personal experience to advance the understanding of trans-racial adoption by academics and professionals. Her contributions to the adoption community have touched many lives. Through her passion and determination, she has actively engaged and educated professionals in the adoption process. She co-developed the Cultural-Racial Identity Model, which has gained recognition for its value as an alternative means for considering the identity paths for transracial adoptees. Dr. Baden, along with Mary O'Leary Wiley, recently published a journal article pertaining to birth parent issues in The Counseling Psychologist. She was also part of the writing team that published the ``Outstanding Major Contribution'' in The Counseling Psychologist on adoption issues in 2003. She has lectured regionally and nationally and she has co-chaired the series of adoption-related conferences at St. John's University in New York City. She has conducted numerous workshops about the psychology of adoption for professionals, families, and adoptees of all ages. I look forward to her soon-to-be-published work, The Handbook of Adoption, which I believe will become a singular reference for families interested in adoption. In addition, Dr. Baden gives freely of her time to many organizations involved in adoption. She is a consultant and board member to both the Korean Adoptee and Adoptive Family Network (KAAN) and the Families with Children from China of Greater New York (FCCNY). She also contributes her time to International Adoption Alliance and the Children's Aid and Family Services organizations in New Jersey. Dr. Baden has even found time to initiate and lead a peer-support group for professionals dealing with issues of adoption in their own fields. Dr. Baden is highly recommended by her peers in the academic world and by those in the adoption field. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology from Penn State University, a Master of Education in Counseling from the University of Georgia, and a Ph.D. in counseling psychology from Michigan State University. I invite you to visit her website www.transracialadoption.net to learn more about her work and adoption issues. Dr. Amanda Baden is a remarkable individual who has set an example of passion and commitment we should all strive to achieve.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we are faced with an historic opportunity this year to pass legislation to combat violent hate crimes that continue to plague our country. Despite the brutal killing of Matthew Shepard 7 years ago, Congress has failed to pass the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. We have a rare opportunity today to finally pass this bill as an amendment to a crime bill, and we must not let this opportunity pass us by again. In the years that followed Matthew Shepard's death, thousands of hate crimes have been committed and Congress has failed to protect gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender individuals from these heinous crimes. Tragically, we are all far too familiar with the violent acts of hate crime. Congress has been too slow in responding to the hate crimes that continue to threaten our communities all across America. Time after time, we hear horror stories of murderers attacking innocent people because they happen to be members of a certain community. Remember, hate crimes are especially odious because they victimize more than just the individual victim; they also are acts of terrorism directed against an entire class of citizens. When a hate crime is committed, it sends a message to every member of the targeted group that they risk their lives simply by remaining part of that community or ascribing to that identity. Americans should never have to be afraid to live the way they choose. The Conyers amendment would strengthen existing Federal law in two ways. First, it removes the requirement that the victim be engaged in a federally protected activity when the crime is committed. The amendment will thereby make it easier for Federal authorities to prosecute or assist local authorities in prosecuting hate crimes. Second, it expands the definition of hate crimes to include those motivated by gender, gender identity, disability, and sexual orientation. We must all redouble our efforts to pass sensible hate crimes prevention legislation this year. We must continue our fight to protect American families from violent bigotry and vicious acts of hatred. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Conyers amendment.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits the transfer to or possession of a firearm by any individual convicted of committing a sex offense against the minor. Under current law, it is illegal to transfer or sell a gun to anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in jail. It is also illegal for any individual convicted of such a crime to possess a gun. For some misdemeanor offenses that, although punishable by less than a year in jail, are of a particular serious nature, we currently prohibit all transfers of guns or possession of guns by individuals convicted of such crimes. For example, we prohibit anyone convicted of a crime of domestic violence, whether a felony or a misdemeanor, from purchasing or possessing a gun. Shockingly, we do not prohibit the sale or possession of guns to people convicted of misdemeanor sex crimes against a minor. We should not treat child sex offenders any more leniently with respect to possessing guns than we do domestic abusers. If Congress is prepared in the underlying bill to require rigorous, severe and intrusive registration for 20 years from persons convicted of a misdemeanor sex offense against a minor, and is prepared to require States to verify this information four times a year, then the offense is indeed of such a serious nature that a convicted sex offender against a child must not be allowed possession of a firearm. A criminal convicted of indecent exposure, lewd conduct or molestation against a minor should not have access to a gun. These are misdemeanor offenses, but dangerous criminals convicted of committing a sexual crime against a child, even when such offense carries a penalty of less than a year, pose too great a danger to society if in possession of a firearm. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to close this loophole.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise in support of the emergency relief bill. I know that all of us have been held rapt by the images and stories coming out of the Gulf Coast. The sorrow and suffering there is almost unimaginable, and it is my fervent hope and prayer that relief, real relief, will come soon. On top of our grief, there is also outrage for it is nothing short of outrageous that in this country, where we talk of 9/11 every day, we still have not dedicated enough resources to improving our emergency response capabilities. The people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, as they wait day after agonizing day for help to arrive, are crying out for leadership and more simply, for help. For those who have died unnecessarily, the help is already too late. If this is the best the world's greatest power can do for its own people, or if it is not, it is a national disgrace. There will be plenty of time in the future to assess exactly why we were so poorly prepared for this storm and why it has taken the Federal Government so long after the levees broke to get effective help to New Orleans. Certainly the roots of the inept handling of the situation are old and deep, but in the short term we need to focus on solutions. We need real leadership, a real plan, and a much bigger contingent of emergency transportation and aid workers. Reports from every corner of embattled New Orleans are that the presence of law enforcement is at best minimal, despite the declarations of the Secretary of Homeland Security, and there is, 5 days after the hurricane and 3 days after the levees broke, still no effective distribution of food, water or medicine. How can this be? We cannot let another hour pass without a substantive response to the glowing shortfalls in the relief and evacuation effort. I would like to join the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), in her call for the creation of a Select Hurricane Relief Task Force. Our hearts go out to all those affected as well as those doing their best to respond to this disaster. Tragically, it is evident that the Federal Government's response has been wholly inadequate. Congress must insist on immediate improvement so that we can put an end to the suffering in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast as soon as possible. Finally, we must learn some lessons. We must not save money by not preparing to prevent or to ameliorate potential catastrophes. We did not, despite ample warning, properly build up and strengthen New Orleans' defenses against hurricanes. We are paying a frightful price for that negligence. We are not now buying the loose nuclear material in the former Soviet Union before it is smuggled to al Qaeda to make nuclear weapons. We are not now inspecting more than about 6 percent of the millions of shipping containers that enter our ports every year, any one of which could contain a weapon of mass destruction. We are not now adequately protecting our chemical and nuclear facilities against sabotage that could kill hundreds of thousands of Americans. We should learn from this disaster. The administration and Congress cut the budget for building up the levees, and we are reaping the whirlwind. The administration has acted unbelievably lethargically in bringing relief efforts, and people have died as a result. Let us not continue our negligent disregard until we suffer a nuclear or chemical catastrophe. I am tired, Mr. Speaker, of passing post- catastrophe relief bills. It is time the administration and this Congress act to prevent the next catastrophe.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, Mark Twain famously said that one of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie is that a cat has only nine lives. This is certainly the case with respect to one of the most persistent slanders against the State of Israel: the contention that on June 8, 1967, the Israel Defense Forces intentionally attacked a U.S. Naval Intelligence vessel, the USS Liberty. Fortunately that lie has been put to rest once and for all by the careful and exhaustive research of the Honorable A. Jay Cristol, a distinguished judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. His careful research of the Liberty incident clearly demonstrates that this tragedy was the result of mistaken identity at the height of the Six Day War, when Israel's very survival was at stake. This conclusion is in line with the conclusions of 10 official U.S. investigations--including five congressional investigations--that there was never any evidence that the attack was made with knowledge that the target was a U.S. ship. There is substantial evidence the attack was a tragic mistake caused by errors on the part of both the U.S. and Israel. On June 8,1967, at the height of the Six Day War, a U.S. Naval intelligence vessel, the USS Liberty, strayed into the waters 14 miles off the Sinai Peninsula, near El Arish. The Israel Defense Forces, having incorrectly identified it as an Egyptian vessel engaged in an attack of Israeli forces, attacked the Liberty, killing and wounding some of the crew. As a U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry found, ``Available evidence combines to indicate that the attack on LIBERTY on 8 June was in fact a case of mistaken identity.'' No one with an open mind can read the evidence amassed by Judge Cristol and reach any other conclusion. Nonetheless, the conspiracy theories persist. Conspiracy theories tend to have a life of their own. They can never be disproved. If there is no evidence supporting the conspiracy, then it is proof of a coverup. If there is evidence proving there was no conspiracy, that is also proof of a coverup. Either way, evidence disproving a conspiracy theory only proves to believers that the conspiracy really exists. No one denies that this incident was a terrible tragedy, but some have sought to exploit a case of mistaken identity by insisting that the Israeli military knew that the Liberty was a U.S. naval vessel, and attacked it on purpose. Despite the complete absence of any credible evidence to support this outrageous claim, it continues to be repeated as if it were true. Judge Cristol has done a tremendous service with his work. It is my hope that his book, ``The Liberty Incident: The 1967 Attack on the U.S. Navy Spy Ship,'' which was the result of more than 14 years of research, will finally lay to rest this slander against one of our Nation's most reliable allies.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have demonstrated that they either do not have a plan to fix the problem of the uninsured, or they simply do not care. Instead, they drag out the same tired giveaways to insurance companies year after year while trampling on the rights of consumers and patients. This bill is a perfect example. It does nothing to address the real causes of rising malpractice rates, but instead protects insurance companies from their own poor business practices. It protects the pharmaceutical companies. It protects the manufacturers of medical devices. It protects everyone except the victims of medical malpractice. We are told the bill is necessary to drive down insurance rates because juries are awarding too much money to plaintiffs. But the fact is lawsuits account for less than 2 percent of health care costs, as they always have, according to CBO. The average jury award has hardly increased at all in the last decade. In the last year, claims payments have decreased, gone down, by 9 percent, according to HHS, yet insurance premiums continue to rise. So where is the crisis? Not in huge runaway juries and not in exorbitant awards. Yet we have here a spectacular assault on the rights of consumers and patients. A cap on noneconomic damages of $250,000 might have been reasonable in 1975 when it was first imposed in California, but today, and with increasing inflation, it is worth less and less. When we considered this bill in committee last year, I offered amendments to raise the cap to $1.5 million, or at least to index it to inflation so it does not get inflated down to worthlessness. Party line vote: Cannot do that. But the biggest weakness of this bill is that it will not work. Anyone who thinks insurance rates will go down as a result of this bill is being sold a bill of goods. This bill merely hopes the insurance executives will, out of the goodness of their hearts, reduce the rates they charge doctors. But there is no mechanism to guarantee this. Instead, the bill will simply lead to higher bottom lines for the insurance companies and protect the careless insurance companies and the careless manufacturers. Every attempt by Democrats to mandate that savings be passed along to doctors in the form of lower rates was voted down by the Republicans. Mr. Speaker, we should not be misled by this bill's supporters. Do not believe for a second that insurance rates will go down as a result of this bill. This bill should be seen for what it is: a gift from the Republican majority to the big insurance companies at the cost of patients' rights, and deluding the doctors and the health care practitioners who are being led down the garden path. If it were meant to help them, why do the Republicans refuse to put into this bill a provision that mandates that the savings that this bill will supposedly accomplish, at least some of those savings, are passed along to doctors in the form of lower malpractice rates? It will not happen. The true thing we should do is to crack down on the 1 or 2 percent of doctors who cause 90 percent of the insurance claims who should not be practicing medicine, and better regulate the insurance companies. That is what we should do to solve this problem. Instead, we have this feel- good bill that will injure already injured patients and will do nothing for the doctors.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Moses and Aaron Foundation Special Fund for Children, a truly distinguished organization that assists children with disabilities and their families. Created in the memory of Rabbi Dr. Maurice I. Hecht and Aaron Kaploun, the foundation has kept alive Dr. Hecht and Mr. Kaploun's commitment to community service through counseling, guidance, wheelchair assistance, and financial assistance to those families with special children. I believe that the foundation's work is a shinning beacon of light for children in need. Examples of such work include providing educational scholarships, clothing and presents. In addition, the Moses and Aaron Foundation under the direction of its President Rabbi Yaacov Kaploun, and Executive Vice President Yehuda Kaploun, in cooperation with Bally Fitness Centers, has established 27 therapy and physical fitness centers and has arranged for sound and musical equipment in other institutions. As the foundation hosts its 9th annual Chazak Summer Concert for Special Children on August 20, 2005, we are again reminded of all that the Moses and Aaron Foundation has contributed to the greater American community. For the past 8 years, the Motzei Shabbat Nachamu Concert, at Sullivan Community College Field House in Loch Sheldrake, New York, has benefited special children and their families by offering them an enjoyable night of music, dancing and plain good fun. The concert will honor and pay tribute to the special and outstanding children who will be the guests of honor and will perform with the entertainers on stage. More than 40 organizations and schools serving the physically and mentally disabled children will be represented. The Chazak Concert in connection with the many other programs operated by the Moses and Aaron Foundation, demonstrate a caring and compassionate concern for the quality and dignity of life of those in need, and therefore merits appreciation. I would also like to applaud the Honorary Chairman and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, President Rabbi Yaacov Kaploun and Executive Vice President Yehuda Kaploun for their hard work and commitment to children of special needs and their families. I pause to commemorate the recent passing of Mrs. Tzippora Kaploun of Jerusalem, Israel, wife of the late Aaron Kaploun. She instilled in her children, grandchildren and great grandchildren the importance of community service and a compassion for those individuals who require the assistance and support of those who are blessed with ability to provide and assist. She exemplified the principles upon which the Foundation is based. I recognize Mr. Jerry Rothman, recipient of the Dr. Steven Stowe Acts of Kindness Award and remember fondly his late wife Anita Rothman, whose acts of charity impacted the lives of many in the course of their 65 years of marriage. We remember the social service and kindness of the late Issac Weinberger who recently passed, and his wife Anne Weinberger. As the Moses and Aaron Foundation Special Fund for Children commemorates this special event, I urge my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to an organization that provides such an essential service to the community and truly exemplifies the generosity of Americans.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member on the committee.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, section 505 is one of the most, perhaps the most egregious provision of the PATRIOT Act, and it provides essentially, as was said before, that any Director of an FBI field office can issue a national security letter directing the production of financial, telephone, Internet and other records, period, without a court order, without any judicial approval, and there is no provision for going to courts to oppose that. The person whose privacy it is sought to invade never knows about it because it is directed to a third party; namely, the Internet service provider, the telephone company, or whoever. Furthermore, they are prevented by the gag order provision of section 505 from ever telling the person whose privacy is affected or anyone else about this. The Federal Court in New York has ruled it unconstitutional for two reasons. One, you cannot issue this kind of what amounts to an intrusive search warrant without any judicial approval or provision for getting judicial approval. That is a violation of the fourth amendment. And, two, the gag order, the nondisclosure provision, was ruled as a prior restraint on speech, the first amendment. This amendment, which I am pleased to cosponsor, is an attempt to solve these problems. It goes a considerable distance towards solving these problems. I do not think it solves all the problems. It does not make section 505 acceptable or even, in my opinion, constitutional, but it goes a good distance towards doing that. It solves the first problem by saying that you can get a national security letter without going to court, but the recipient can go to court to quash it. That is a minimum standard that ought to be adhered to. This amendment does that, and I am very pleased it does that. It allows the recipient of a national security letter to ask that the gag order be set aside, and it sets limits on the gag order and says it has to be renewed after a certain time period and you have to apply to a court to extend it. It fails, in my opinion, in that second provision to reach constitutional status by saying that the showing the government has to make to get an extension of the gag order, the affidavit by the government officer asking for the extension, shall be treated as conclusive unless the court finds that certification was made in bad faith. So that is not really up to the judgment of the judge, and I do not think that would satisfy the court on the first amendment. But it goes a long way, as I said, toward making this less egregious a violation of civil liberties and towards making it more constitutional. I do not think it goes far enough but it is a step forward. It also does not deal with the fact that section 505 should be sunsetted. Because section 505, like some of the other sections we have talked about, is a great expansion of surveillance and police powers, and it may be a necessary one, although I do not agree with that, but even if it is necessary we should be nervous about the expansion of surveillance and police powers and we should revisit that and force Congress to revisit it through using a sunset every so often. So this amendment goes a considerable distance in the right direction. It does not go far enough, in my opinion, to solve the problems with section 505, but it does go several steps in the right direction, and I commend the sponsor for introducing it, the main sponsor for drafting it, and I support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, though I am in support of the amendment.

Mr. NADLER. This should be defeated for those reasons because it is not a proper balance between security and liberty. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, war has been declared on this country by the Islamic terrorists, and we must protect the citizens of this country. The PATRIOT Act was an attempt in some respects to do this. But before commenting on the specifics of the PATRIOT Act, I would be derelict if I did not mention that the majority party in this House and the Bush administration have really been derelict by not dealing more directly with the threats that we face. The biggest threats we face are sabotage, bombings in our mass transit systems, sabotage of our chemical farms, our nuclear plants that could kill thousands of people, yet we do not see funds to deal with this. It is easy to be demagogic. The Bush administration does not want to throw money at the problem; they want to throw rhetoric at the problem. So we have the PATRIOT Act. I wish we had real measures to protect our mass transit systems, to protect our vulnerable infrastructure, to protect us against what happened in London again this morning. The PATRIOT Act was an attempt to do several things, some of which were very necessary. Breaking down the wall between intelligence and police information was very necessary and was in the PATRIOT Act and is not before us today because most of the PATRIOT Act is not before us today. Most of the PATRIOT Act is permanentized. It is permanent law. But when we are expanding police powers and when we are expanding surveillance powers, the power of government to pry into the private affairs, the books, the records, the medical histories of individual citizens, sometimes it may be necessary for security to do so. But it endangers liberty, and that has to be balanced. We should always be nervous about expanding police and surveillance powers, and that is one of the greatest weaknesses of this bill. We were only able to pass the PATRIOT Act 4 years ago because most, not all but most of the sections of the PATRIOT Act that expanded the powers of the police to pry into the privacy of ordinary Americans, to go into their home, into their papers, into their Internet records, their telephone records, their bank records, were sunsetted. So what? What is the point of sunsetting? It means that every 4 years at least Congress has to look at that again, has to revisit it, has to have oversight and determine whether those powers are being abused. Mr. Sensenbrenner says they are not being abused. He knows. The Justice Department said so. They said, We are not abusing it. Glad to hear it. But every 4 years we should have to look into it and ask are these powers being abused? Should it be fine tuned? Should they be narrowed? Have we made the right balance between security and liberty? This bill eliminates those sunsets, except for two, which it makes 10-year sunsets. We have had 4 years since the PATRIOT Act was enacted. We did not do any oversight in this House until 6 months ago. Why? Because of the sunset. If it had not been for the sunsetting, we would not have had the oversight. We must have that oversight and we should have had all of these things sunsetted, continued another 4 years, another 4 years. Secondly, Members have heard about section 215. The powers granted in section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which is hardly modified by this bill, to look into anybody's library and medical records in secret and not tell anybody that they have done so, not tell the person whose records are pried into is a very disturbing invasion of liberty, and amendments to limit it were not made in order. Section 505 of the bill, which enables any FBI agent, any FBI field office director, to issue a national security letter to let them go and see their Internet records, their phone records, and so forth without even going to a judge and telling them it is relevant to a national security investigation is wrong, and it was declared unconstitutional by a federal court. The amendments to make this constitutional, to say that they have to at least allow for judicial review and to sunset the gag order were not made in order.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I heard the remarks of the majority leader a few minutes ago. Democracy depends on free speech and dissent. Free speech is stifled when dissent is labeled treason or is derided in time of war as not supporting our troops. We all support our troops. One can point out the mistakes or the dishonesty of the administration while not stinting in supporting our troops. Pointing out that the administration misled the country about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is not ``not supporting our troops.'' Pointing out that Karl Rove appears to have participated in a conspiracy to punish Ambassador Wilson for telling the truth about this by revealing the Ambassador's wife's CIA role is not ``not supporting our troops.'' Pointing out the administration's justification for keeping our troops in harm's way in Iraq flip-flops by the season is not ``not supporting our troops.'' Demanding proper investigation of evidence that the administration has disgraced this country by evading our laws against torturing prisoners is not ``not supporting our troops.'' A free society requires that all these accusations see the light of day. Let the administration rebut them if they can. But do not use the mantra of supporting our troops to stifle essential free speech.