Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits funds from being used to issue national security letters to health insurance companies under the provisions of section 505 of the PATRIOT Act. Currently, any FBI field office director is authorized to issue secret national security letters to insurance providers without any judicial approval, not even a FISA court. These NSLs open the door to a secret seizure of highly personal medical information. The FBI, if this amendment passes, will still be able to get all these records because they have so many other tools available to them, which I will describe in a moment. Almost limitless sensitive private information from health insurance companies, including medical records, can be collected secretly by simply issuing a national security letter under section 505 on an FBI field director's own assertion that the request is merely relevant to a national security investigation. These private health insurance records can be demanded without any court review or approval, not even a FISA court. Worse yet, the target of the NSL will never know that his health records were inspected by government agents, because health insurance companies are barred by law from telling him or anyone else that the records were demanded. Government officials already have access to so much of our personal information, such as credit reports, library use, and telephone communications. Do we want the government to keep files detailing our personal lifestyles as revealed by our medical histories, psychiatric profiles, lab studies, and diagnostic tests like CAT scans or MRIs? Why does the FBI need access to health records? How is this information pertinent to a terrorist investigation? If somehow your medical records are, in fact, relevant to a terrorist investigation, the government should be required to explain to a judge, in a secret FISA court if need be, why that is, instead of simply allowing an FBI field agent to demand those records in secret. In any criminal investigation the FBI can obtain a search warrant for documents or other tangible things if there is a judicial finding of probable cause that a crime has been or will be committed. The FBI can use grand jury subpoenas issued under the supervision of a judge and the U.S. Attorney. And in international terrorism cases, such as we are talking here, the FBI has sweeping authority to obtain business records, including medical records, under section 215, which we discussed a few moments ago. Given these existing powers, there is no reason to authorize the FBI to issue unchecked and reviewable national security letters demanding personal medical records. I am not seeking to repeal the PATRIOT Act. This amendment seeks only to modify the application of one provision that poses a serious potential to abuse. Through this very narrow amendment we can provide checks and balances with regard to our sensitive medical records. However, since I was greatly restricted by the House rules, this amendment does not fully address all the problems created by section 505 and national security letters. I am hopeful I can work with the Committee on the Judiciary to address these problems more completely. This amendment addresses only the health insurance provider's records; not bank records, not credit company records, not credit bureau records, not car dealerships. But when it comes to health insurance, what terrorist has health insurance? The problem is that most, but not all, innocent Americans do have health insurance, and the FBI should not have easy access to this information, at least not without telling a judge why he needs this. I have also introduced, along with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), a stand-alone bill to address more fully the issues presented by section 505. In Doe v. Ashcroft, the New York Federal District Court struck down this section on the grounds that it violates free speech rights under the first amendment, as well as the right to be free from unreasonable searches under the fourth amendment. We can all agree that giving the FBI access to our most intimate private information is too great an intrusion of privacy to leave unlimited and unsupervised. We can be both safe and free. And if the FBI thinks that for a terrorist investigation it needs access to private medical records, let them at least show to a judge, in a secret FISA court, under section 215, which we did not take the power away from them to do, why that is relevant to an ongoing terrorist investigation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. What is the difference that this amendment will make? The difference is between good police work and fishing expeditions. This amendment is designed to say you can read without being afraid the government will someday reveal what you are reading. We do not want the chilling effect on free speech. If there is a real reason the government needs this information, that the government suspects someone is looking up how to make atomic bombs, then let the FBI go to a court and get a search warrant or show probable cause and get a subpoena. That is the American way. That is the way we have always done it. The gentleman from Virginia says, well, we had an attack on 9/11. Indeed, we did. In my district, 3,000 people were killed; and he says, maybe, who knows, this power could be used to stop a future event. But we can say that about anything. Ours is a government of limited powers. That is what distinguishes us from the Soviet Union or Communist China or any other tyranny; and those powers must be limited so as to protect liberty, even in the face of threats. The gentleman says no instance of abuse has been shown. Well, sure, because all of this is secret. No instance of abuse can be shown. Mr. Chairman, the point of this amendment is that we need not surrender fundamental liberty to protect ourselves from terrorism, and we should not; and this is why we should adopt this amendment. We can have our protection. We must have our protection. We must also have our liberty.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not carve out a sanctuary as the gentleman says, nor do they report to Congress. They report to Congress on other things, but on section 505 they report nothing. We get no information. All this amendment says is if the FBI thinks that your personal medical records, and that is all we are talking about, the medical records from the medical insurance company, are relevant to a terrorist investigation, they go to a judge and tell him and he says yes. They can even go to a FISA court judge in a secret proceeding. Also, we were told they can get these records by administrative proceedings on other subjects. On other subjects they get the proceedings, they ask you for the records about yourself, and you can move to quash it. You can challenge it. They do not go to the insurance company and say give me the records about him under administrative subpoenas. Under this section, the government can go, the FBI can go to the insurance company and get your personal medical records without even telling any judge, even in a secret proceeding, why it is necessary. All this amendment says is if they want your personal medical records, they have to tell a judge why it is relevant, in secret, why it is relevant to a terrorist investigation. They do not have to not get the records, but they have to tell a judge why it is relevant, and the judge can say it is relevant. That is the minimal standard we should insist on for liberty. Indeed, in other amendments we say it is not good enough, and I agree. But in this amendment, that is all we are asking. For personal medical records, if the government wants to rummage through your personal medical records, they should have to say to a judge in a FISA court in a secret proceeding why they think it is relevant to an investigation. Not why there is probable cause, but why it is relevant. It is a very low standard, and if the government cannot meet that standard, they should not have your personal medical record information. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, a NSL, unlike an administrative subpoena, is not the target of the inquiry and has no interest in contesting or refusing it.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, job creation under the Bush administration remains disappointing, despite 3 years of economic recovery. Last month the economy created only 78,000 jobs. There are fewer private sector jobs in the United States today than there were in January 2001 when President Bush took office. In fact, the economy must still create an additional 24,000 jobs just to get back to where we were in 2001. In the Clinton years we created 23 million new jobs. We did not lose private sector jobs. Also on this President's watch, our economy has lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs, including 7,000 more last month. The weakness of the job market is also showing up in the continued stagnation of workers' earnings. Today, on average, workers' hourly wages are down 1 percent from last year if you factor in inflation. That means workers are taking home less, at a time when their health care, education and gas bills are skyrocketing. Mr. Speaker, Republicans had their chance to jump-start the economy. For 4 years they have been cutting taxes for the wealthiest few in the hopes that jobs and higher salaries would trickle down to the middle class. It has not happened. Mr. Speaker, it is time for a new approach.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House. The form of my resolution is as follows: Resolution disapproving the manner in which Representative Sensenbrenner has responded to the minority party's request under rule XI of the House of Representatives for an additional day of oversight hearings on the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act and the manner in which such hearing was conducted. Whereas Representative Sensenbrenner willfully and intentionally violated the Rules of the House of Representatives by abusing and exceeding his powers as chairman; Whereas subsequent to receiving a request for an additional day of hearings by members of the minority party pursuant to rule XI, Representative Sensenbrenner scheduled such hearing on less than 48 hours notice; Whereas such hearing occurred on Representative Sensenbrenner's directive at 8:30 a.m., on Friday, June 10, 2005, a date when the House was not in session session and votes were not scheduled; Whereas Representative Sensenbrenner directed his staff to require that the witnesses' written testimony be made available on less than 18 hours notice; Whereas, during the course of the hearing, Representative Sensenbrenner made several false and disparaging comments about members of the minority party in violation of rule XVII; Whereas, Representative Sensenbrenner failed to allow members of the committee to question each witness for a period of 5 minutes in violation of rule XI; Whereas Representative Sensenbrenner refused on numerous and repeated occasions throughout the hearing to recognize members of the minority party attempting to raise points of order; Whereas when Representative Nadler and Representative Jackson-Lee sought recognition to raise a point of order, Representative Sensenbrenner refused to recognize Representative Nadler or Representative Jackson-Lee, and intentionally and wrongfully adjourned the committee without obtaining or seeking either unanimous consent or a vote of the committee members present in violation of rule XVI; Whereas subsequent to Representative Sensenbrenner's improper adjournment of the hearing, his staff turned off the microphones and the electronic transmission of the proceedings and instructed the court reporter to stop taking transcription, even though the committee hearing had not been properly adjourned, and members of the minority party had invited witnesses to continue to speak; and Whereas Representative Sensenbrenner willfully trampled the right of the minority to meaningfully hold an additional day of hearings in violation of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and brought discredit upon the House of Representatives: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That (1) the House strongly condemns the manner in which Representative Sensenbrenner has responded to the minority party's request for an additional day of oversight hearings on the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act, and the manner in which such hearing was conducted; and (2) the House instructs Representative Sensenbrenner, in consultation with Representative Conyers, to schedule a further day of hearings with witnesses requested by members of the minority party concerning the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act.''

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Elizabeth J. Coleman, who has dedicated her life to the fight for civil rights, and has broken down numerous barriers along the way. Ms. Coleman's legal career has focused on ensuring access for all Americans to a fair and unbiased justice system, one through which they can realize the entirety of their constitutional rights. This principle has guided her throughout her years of service, from work on behalf of indigent consumers in Georgia to her national work for the Anti-Defamation League, and most recently during her stint at the New York State Trial Lawyers Association (NYSTLA), where she was an outstanding Executive Director and General Counsel. Ms. Coleman has also held many additional posts and has been involved in many endeavors over the years. She was elected Chair of the Board of the National Women's Law Center in 1996 and served in that capacity until 2003. President Clinton appointed Ms. Coleman Vice-Chair of the President's Export Council in 1994 and a United States Delegate to the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China, in 1995. More recently, the National Organization for Women's New York City chapter honored her in 2003 as a Woman of Power and Courage. Last year she was honored by New York Women's Agenda as a STAR, an honor bestowed upon women who represent the spirit of New York, provide leadership in business and in the community, and are role models for other women. I can think of no more worthy recipient of such recognition than Ms. Coleman. As Elizabeth Coleman leaves NYSTLA, she embarks on a new mission, but one with the same goals in mind. She will continue her advocacy for civil and social justice through foundation work and community organizing. As she begins the next chapter of her life, I thank her wholeheartedly for her tireless work, and I wish her the very best in the years to come.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 282, which calls on the President to take steps to stem the ugly tide of anti- Semitism at the United Nations and in the Middle East. The hijacking of the United Nations by some member states is an attack against international peace and the founding principles of the U.N. The use of blood libels by representatives of member states, in reports, and by NGOs, is unacceptable and a betrayal of the U.N.'s mission. The U.N. is robbed of its moral authority when member states hijack it for illicit purposes. Slandering an entire people, their aspirations for self-determination, and their homeland, is not acceptable. Excluding a member state from the community of nations because of ancient hatreds and slanders is unworthy of an organization founded to promote world peace and end human suffering. Holding one nation to a standard no other nation is held to is, whether people wish to admit it or not, bigotry at its worst. No other nation would be denounced for taking steps to protect its citizens from acts of terror aimed intentionally at civilians. No nation has exercised as much restraint as Israel, yet no nation has been subjected to condemnation, indeed vilification and demonization, including those countries that practice slavery, torture, and genocide, some of whom have been privileged to sit on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights--a right denied to Israel in the more than half-century it has been a member. Mr. Speaker, the United Nations is only as strong and decent as its member nations. That is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. When the nations of the world stand by, or worse, participate in, the vilification of the Jewish people, it is a reflection not just on the institution, but on the failings of its members. I believe it is time for the President to do more to press the U.N., and its member states, to bring an end to institutionalized anti- Semitism. It is not enough to criticize the U.N. It is not enough to denounce anti-Semitism. This administration must exert pressure on those countries that have gotten a pass on their efforts both in the U.N. and in other forums. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, who distort the mission of the U.N., must be held to account for their actions. The United Nations is capable of good and important work, in the eradication of disease, in alleviating poverty. It can and should do more, but it can never live up to its potential and its mission unless it sheds the stain of anti-Semitism. The United States must take the lead in this important effort. I support this resolution. I hope that the President heeds its message and does what he must do to end the bitter reign of anti-Semitism at the U.N.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the New York County Lawyers Association (NYCLA), and the 75th anniversary of its building, located at 14 Vesey Street in New York City. This location, in the heart of both my District and Lower Manhattan, has been the home of NYCLA and its many charitable and educational programs, all of which further its primary purpose of serving the public interest. Tonight's celebration will feature many of New York City's most esteemed scholars. They include the Hon. Judith Kaye, Chief Judge of the State of New York, Hon. John M. Walker Jr., Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Michael Cardozo, Corporation Counsel for the City of New York, and Paul Goldberger, architecture critic for The New Yorker. The Home of Law was designed by legendary American architect Cass Gilbert, designer of the Woolworth and U.S. Supreme Court Buildings, and consulting architect for the George Washington Bridge. The groundbreaking for the Home of Law took place in 1929 and construction was completed just five and a half months later, on May 26, 1930, exactly 75 years ago today. The ribbon-cutting ceremony was attended by such notable figures as then Court of Appeals Chief Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo, Judge Samuel Seabury, John W. Davis, and City Bar President Charles C. Burlingham. Then-NYCLA President William Nelson Cromwell chose 14 Vesey Street for the Home of Law because, with St. Paul's Chapel across the street, no building would ever block the view. NYCLA, in its 97-year history, has proven to be a visionary and inclusive organization, pioneering some of the most far-reaching and tangible reforms in American jurisprudence and playing an active role in legal developments and public policy. NYCLA also bears the mark of distinction of being the first major bar association in the United States that admitted members without regard to race, ethnicity, religion or gender. NYCLA and its Home of Law serve New York with distinction, and I am pleased to honor them today on the 75th anniversary of their historic building.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 57th Anniversary of Israel's Independence Day. Having long been the victims of discrimination and persecution, and fresh from the unimaginable horror of the Holocaust, the Jewish people of the world were successful in establishing an independent state in May of 1948. Thanks to their heroic efforts, Israel was born as a pluralistic democracy that promotes the values of liberty for all of its citizens. Fifty-seven years later, Israel continues to shine as a beacon of hope in a region too often blighted by oppressive and dictatorial regimes. Despite Israel's desire for a peaceable existence, its citizens have been the target of violence since the state's inception. These attacks have come from neighboring states, resulting in multiple wars, and from the coordinated efforts of terrorists. Innocent Israeli's have been targeted while going about their daily lives, often during activities as routine as boarding a bus or sitting in an outdoor cafe. Yet, despite the recurring waves of terror, the Israeli people have managed not just to maintain their independence, but also to thrive as a society. Israelis find themselves at the leading edge of innovation in the scientific and academic fields. The industrious Israeli people transformed an arid landscape into a model green space dotted with cities rich in diversity and culture. This resilience and vibrancy is a credit to Israel's open system of government, a system that respects and promotes civil rights, free expression, and genuine democratic elections. I am hopeful that a lasting peace in this troubled region can be reached. However, this cannot come at the expense of Israel's security. I will continue to demand that the Palestinian Authority renounce, immediately and completely, all forms of terrorism. On this day of independence, Yom Ha'Atzmaut, the United States stands proudly with Israel and remembers the sacrifices made by her founders. In addition, we honor the soldiers and ordinary citizens who have died in defense of freedom. The U.S. takes great pride in our alliance with Israel, and we find great strength in our moral and philosophical ties, as well as our economic and military partnerships. We will continue to act jointly with Israel to preserve her status as a secure Jewish state and a model of democracy for the whole of the Middle East. I urge my colleagues to support this concurrent resolution.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the en bloc amendment calls among other things for special immigrant status for Iraqi or Afghani nationals who have served as translators with the United States Armed Forces. This amendment is a direct response to the critical need for translators and linguists in our military. This interpreter shortage is well documented. The 9/11 Commission report stated that the government ``lacked sufficient translators proficient in Arabic and other key languages, resulting in a significant backlog of untranslated intercepts.'' The 2002 GAO study and the September 2004 Justice Department IG report made the same findings. The shortage of Arabic translators in Iraq and Afghanistan has made it harder for U.S. soldiers to protect themselves and has jeopardized interrogations of suspected al Qaeda terrorists in U.S. custody. I commend the author of this legislation for his willingness to open the immigration doors to Arabic and Farsi linguists serving as translators with the United States Armed Forces. Yet, the answer to this dire need is not to give U.S. citizenship to Iraqis and Afghanis, but rather to stop discriminating against American citizens who are ready to loyally serve their country as Arabic translators. It is no coincidence that this bill would create 50 spots for Iraqi and Afghani nationals, almost the exact number of translators who have been discharged under the military's ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' law in effect since 1994. Fifty-four Arabic and nine Persian/Iranian, including Farsi, translators have been discharged under this policy. Because of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'' the military continues to devote its resources to rooting out patriotic gay Americans whose service is central to the war on terrorism. This is another example of how ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' is not in the best interest of our national security. Mr. Chairman, this Congress says, ``Don't ask, Don't tell, Don't translate.'' I urge my colleagues to recognize the fundamental rights of American citizens and the fundamental absurdity of denying the right to serve to citizens who have vitally needed skills that we all know we need. I urge this Congress to repeal the obnoxious and incredibly self- defeating policy of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.''

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I will rise to support this amendment which would reverse the shameful policy forbidding women in our Armed Forces from using even their own funds to pay for an abortion at a safe U.S. medical facility abroad. It is truly sad and disgraceful that our current policy requires women who are serving their country to sacrifice their constitutional right to an abortion if they so choose. I have heard the rhetoric from the opponents of this amendment. They say that abortion is terrible. Well, that is their opinion. They are entitled to it. But it is the law. It is a constitutional right of a woman, if she so chooses, to have an abortion. And as long as that is so, she should not be required to sacrifice her constitutional right because she serves her country in the military abroad, or to choose to give up her right or to go into a possibly unsafe foreign facility. I have heard people say, well, even if she spends her own money, she might have to spend money for a doctor because doctors do not want to do it. It is not up to doctors or anybody else as to whether people should enjoy their constitutional rights. If it costs money to enable a woman who has chosen to serve her country in the armed services to have the ability to have her constitutional rights, then it costs money. Although I do not see why we should make sure that among the doctors in the military there are those who are willing to perform any service that the Constitution requires be afforded upon request. So even to require a woman to give up her constitutional right which she has, and whatever you may say about the duty is to heal and not to take a life, some of us do not regard that as taking a life. But it is her constitutional right. She should not be required to give it up, especially when she pays for it herself. We should not discriminate against women in the military.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the debate on stem cell research challenges all of us to think carefully about the value we place on human life. Many of us turn to our faith traditions for guidance and wisdom. None of us has the right to legislate our religious beliefs and impose them on others. But as Members look to the teachings of their faiths for guidance, I ask them to remember that not all faiths hold that stem cell research is the enemy of life. The religious traditions of many of us do not tell us that a 14-day-old blastocyst has the same moral significance as a human being and do tell us that the obligation to preserve life, which includes the obligation to cure disease and alleviate human suffering, is paramount. I understand and respect the faith of all of my colleagues. It is a sincere faith that reveres life. I ask them to accord that same respect to the faiths of others. Unfortunately, words have sometimes been used carelessly, and these words sometimes denigrate the faith of others. When the teachings of a faith are described as ``a culture of death'' because they hold that the potential to save and heal human lives is an integral part of valuing human life, that faith and its adherence are being slandered. How dare anyone slander the faiths of many Americans as ``a culture of death.'' God does not speak to one faith alone. We hear lots of speeches about respecting people of faith and the need to bring faith into the public square. The people who make those speeches should respect all faiths. We should vote our consciences, but we should not denigrate the faith and consciences of the millions of Americans who seek to preserve life and end suffering and who believe that embryonic stem cell research can save lives and therefore embodies the highest morality.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment to increase funding for the NEA and the NEH. Without this amendment, the continued flat funding the President requested this year will really amount to another cut. I wish we could return to the days of the first President Bush when the arts were funded at $175 million. The amount we are asking for today amounts to little more than a comma in the budget, a rounding error when compared to Federal spending in other areas such as defense. Whether it is the educational value, the cultural enrichment, or the substantial economic windfall the arts and humanities create, the NEA and the NEH are two of the best investments this Nation makes. When we shortchange the NEA, we ignore the $134 billion in business that the arts generate, the 4.8 million jobs, the $89.4 billion in household income, and the $25 billion in tax revenues. A recent RAND study noted the importance of the intrinsic benefit of the arts for individuals and communities. This modest amount asks only to restore the funding level the House supported last year, but that was stripped during conference. It is the very least we should do today. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to vote against any attempts to slash funding from the arts and humanities that may be offered in other amendments.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, 36 years ago, Republican Senator Howard Baker took to the Senate floor during a Republican-led filibuster of Abe Fortas, President Johnson's nominee to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Senator Baker justified the Republican filibuster by stating, ``On any issue the majority, at any given moment, is not always right.'' Some people might be surprised that Senate Republicans led a filibuster against a judicial nominee. After all, Senator Frist continues to claim all judicial appointees are entitled to an up-or- down vote, no matter what. It is a disingenuous statement when he himself and other proponents of this extreme measure have used the filibuster to delay and defeat judicial nominations of the past. It is a hypocritical statement when the Republican majority in the Senate derailed and defeated 65 of President Clinton's judicial nominations without ever permitting them a vote or even a hearing, not a vote in committee, not a vote on the floor. And now that the Republicans are in the majority and have a President, they want to prevent Democrats from taking the very same actions they have used. They are now trying to change the rules of the Senate in the middle of the game to try to take away the rights of the minority. Senator Baker was correct in 1968 when he said the majority was not always right, and it is time Senate Republicans realize that their extreme power grab is not in the best interests of either this Congress or this Nation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 4 years ago, fanatic Islamic terrorists attacked our country, hijacked our planes, rammed the Pentagon, and destroyed the World Trade Center that was located in my district. This is deadly serious business, and we do not have a dime to waste. This bill, while certainly an improvement over current law, still includes State-based formula funding. I offered an amendment to eliminate the State minimum section of the bill to ensure that all homeland security funding is distributed on the basis of risk. Unfortunately, that amendment was not made in order by this restrictive rule. I am saddened that there are still people in this House who still do not get it. How many times do we have to run for our lives before we realize this is not a game? We face the serious threat of terrorism, and we should allocate the homeland security funding based on that threat. I understand this bill is a delicate political compromise. On the whole, I support it because it is better than current law. But we can do better. State minimums waste homeland security funding. This bill would give States money that cannot be justified on the basis of the risk, wasting precious resources that should be used to protect the American people from real dangers in other States. In this wonderful, open, rich, free society in which we live, there are plenty of real targets that need protecting all across America. The issue of State minimums is not just about New York. If there are real threats to our food supply, our energy resources, our national monuments, they should all be protected. But we should not give more money to States who cannot demonstrate a need while we know there are other States that have needs that cannot be met. It just does not make sense. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission recommended that anti-terrorism funding be distributed based on risk and not based on State formulas or pork-barrel spending. We should follow their excellent advice. The State minimum provision in this bill is in direct violation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. In its report, it said that, Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.'' The commission went on to say that ``Federal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. It should supplement State and local resources based on the risks and vulnerabilities that merit additional support. Congress should not use this money as pork barrel.'' My amendment would have stricken these State minimums and distributed these grants in a manner that addresses the highest priority threats and vulnerabilities of the Nation. There are very real and known terrorist threats against specific targets in the country, and these homeland security grant programs were created specifically to address these threats. Distributing terrorism response funding without regard to risk is not wise. It is not cost effective. It is not in the best interests of our country's security. These resources should go where they are needed, where there is the greatest threat of terrorism. Period. As noted in the 9/11 Commission's report, ``Those who would allocate money on a different basis should then defend their view of the national interest.'' I had hoped that the Rules Committee would have followed the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and made my amendment in order. Nevertheless, I am pleased that the State minimum section in this bill is a significant improvement over current law by being much smaller, and I hope that when we enter into conference with the other body, we remain firm and fight to keep State minimums at the lowest possible level so that the risk-based funds can be kept at the highest level to fight the real threat of terrorism in our country.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Gerald Schoenfeld and, posthumously, Bernard B. Jacobs on the occasion of the dedication of the Schoenfeld and Jacobs Theatres on Broadway. For over 20 successful years, Schoenfeld and Jacobs ran the Shubert Organization, America's oldest professional theatre company, as Chairman and President. With today's dedication, they are being honored with one of Broadway's most cherished and esteemed accolades. Over the last 103 years, the Shubert Organization has owned hundreds of theatres and produced hundreds of plays and musical. Since the 1980s, the company's ticketing service has grown to become the leading ticket provider in New York City's thriving theatre industry. Founded at the end of the 19th century, three brothers, Sam, Lee and Jacob J. Shubert, from Syracuse, New York, founded the organization. Today, the Shubert Organization owns and/or operates 16 Broadway theatres and one Off-Broadway theatre in New York City, as well as theatres in Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington, DC. Bernard B. Jacobs was born in New York City in 1916. In his long career on Broadway, he produced hundreds of plays, and was nominated for and won numerous Tony Awards. In 1996, the Shubert Organization lost its beloved and much admired President, and he was posthumously honored with the Special Tony Award for Lifetime Achievement in 1997. Today, the Shubert Organization continues to thrive under the chairmanship of Gerald Schoenfeld. Schoenfeld was born in New York in 1924, and in his career has enjoyed tremendous success on Broadway. He is also deeply committed to the betterment of the City of New York, and is an active participant in civic affairs. Schoenfeld, with his former colleague, has produced hundreds of successful plays, and his been nominated for and won dozens of Tony Awards. Under the leadership of Schoenfeld and Jacobs, the Shubert Organization was reorganized into the powerhouse it is today. Over the past three decades, the organization has dedicated its energies and resources to a long-term campaign for the revitalization of the American theatre. Its many projects have included the refurbishment of all Shubert playhouses, devoted participation in civic and community affairs, and a continuing effort to rehabilitate the Times Square Theatre District. Today, May 9, 2005, I am pleased to join the Schoenfeld and Jacobs families, along with Hugh Jackman, Dame Edna Everage, and the cast of the Broadway hit ``Avenue Q'' as the Shubert Organization dedicates the Gerald Schoenfeld and Bernard B. Jacobs Theatres. For their commitment to the theatre, their passion for the arts, and their efforts to better the lives of all New Yorkers, I congratulate and honor the Shubert Organization, and specifically Gerald Schoenfeld, and Bernard B. Jacobs, here today.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I seek recognition on a question of personal privilege pursuant to rule IX of the rules of the House. I have placed at the desk the documentation on which this question is based.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Have the corrections or the supplemental report to the committee report been filed yet?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, not seeing the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for filing the corrected report, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the basis of my question of personal privilege concerns the manner in which amendments I offered during the Committee on the Judiciary's consideration of H.R. 748 on April 13, 2005, were characterized in the committee's report on that legislation, House Report 109-51. Specifically, the report, in the section required under clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the rules of the House reporting the votes of the committee described my amendments in a manner that denigrated my ``rights, reputation, and conduct . . . in [my] representative capacity . . . '' within the meaning of clause 1 of rule IX. The language in question appears on pages 45 and 46 of the committee report, and it mischaracterizes my amendments in a manner that does not reflect the actual content of the amendments nor the actual intent of those amendments. In fact, it uses legislation to describe my legislative actions that is pejorative and inflammatory and that is highly damaging to my reputation. It is with great sadness and regret that I come to the floor today. I have never previously in my 12 years as a Member of this House, nor in my quarter century representing the people of New York, had the need to rise on a personal privilege. I have never had my reputation, or my legislative efforts, so terrible maligned in an official record of any legislative body in which I have served. It is my hope that this is the last time I will ever need to claim the floor in a question of personal privilege. I would observe that the filing a few minutes ago of the supplemental report to the Committee on the Judiciary report is a tacit acknowledgment of the inaccuracy and untruthfulness of the original report and its reputation in the public domain, and renders much of what was said in its defense in the Committee on Rules and on the floor, as the saying goes, ``inoperative.'' I commend the chairman for correcting the record and hope that with this correction of the slanderous report language, this unfortunate chapter can be brought to a close. While I would have hoped that this correction would have been accompanied by an apology and by an acknowledgment that this report was a violation of the tradition and norms of the House, that is, perhaps, in the regrettably poisonous atmosphere of the present day, unobtainable. I regret that things have reached such an unfortunate state. This situation is especially sad because it involves the Committee on the Judiciary's official report on this bill, which contained false and misleading, indeed libelous, descriptions of the amendments I and my colleagues offered in committee in good faith, and with the intent of protecting children and families in terrible situations. Those characterizations came in the section of the report, required by the rules, that simply requires an accurate report of all recorded votes. There are many places in committee reports where commentary is appropriate. Both the majority and the minority have the opportunity in the report to make their cases, and very much to the credit of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) the Committee on the Judiciary reports also contain a transcript of the markup. What has never been done, and I am not aware of the majority on any committee having so abused its power, is to distort the content of the amendments in the section reserved for reporting votes. Every Member of this House sits on committees; every Member knows what a report looks like, and every Member of this House knows this was an aberration and that it was wrong. I do not believe it is necessary to repeat the report language that gave rise to this point of personal privilege. The Chair has the offending language, and it has been plastered all over the Record, the press, and Web logs. I feel no need to repeat it. Enough damage has already been done. To place this report, and the slanderous language it used in context, the last time the Committee on the Judiciary reported a version of the same bill, the report said: ``An amendment was offered by Mr. Nadler prohibiting H.R. 476 from applying `with respect to conduct by a grandparent or adult sibling of the minor.' '' Same amendment, same committee, different year. Earlier versions of this bill have been reported by the Committee on the Judiciary on three prior occasions, going to 1998. In no case have any of my amendments been described in the inaccurate and pejorative fashion they were in this year's committee report. The Committee on Rules described the same amendment in the following manner when it reported it to the floor: ``Adds to the exceptions to the offense of transporting minors for the purpose of obtaining an illegal abortion grandparents of the minor and members of the clergy.'' Even the Republican Study Committee, the voice of some of the most conservative of our colleagues, described the amendment this way: ``The amendment allows a grandparent of the minor or a clergy person to bring pregnant minors across State lines for abortions.'' These are factual descriptions of the amendment. They are nonargumentative factual descriptions as the rules call for. In fact, neither the bill itself nor the amendments contained the offensive terms used in the committee report to describe my amendments. No member of the committee described my amendments in this libelous manner at any time during the debate. Nobody in the majority, none of the Republicans in opposing my amendments in committee debate said that they contained the material which the committee report libelously says they do. As the transcript clearly shows, the transcript contained in the committee's report appearing on page 58 to 120 will clearly show. It is regrettable that even in filing the supplemental report, the majority felt the need to restate the slander, but this time in the section reserved for majority views. The majority, however, is entitled to its views, even if they are not factually based; and the appropriate place to express them is in debate and in documents reserved for expressing their views, such as the majority view section of the committee report. The minority has a similar right in debate and in its dissenting views, and I would not expect the majority to tell us what views we should have or how to express them. Not abusing the power the majority has over the contents and the filing of the report, which the minority does not get to see until it is filed, is really based on nothing more than the honor system. Unfortunately, in this system, the honor system failed. This abuse of power of mischaracterizing and slandering the amendments and the Members who offered them in the section of the report reserved for simply reporting amendments and the votes thereon, could not be allowed to stand or there would have been no end to it. This is not about party, nor is it about a bill, nor about an amendment, nor even about the underlying issue. It is about the ``rights, reputation and conduct of Members, delegates or the resident commissioner, individually, in their representative capacity only.'' When the majority abuses its power to attack the reputation of Member or Members, as it did in this case, the House must act to correct the injustice. The supplemental report filed by the majority is an important step in that direction, and I thank the chairman for agreeing to file the correction. We have strayed far from the customary comity and fair play to which this House has long adhered. That is no way to represent our views to the voters of this country. The voters have every right to expect us to fight for our beliefs, to represent them vigorously, and to speak out in clear terms on the important issues of the day. But, Mr. Speaker, there are limits. When Members of this House transgress those limits, we fail the people who sent us here and we fail the institution in which we are honored to serve. We are elected to 2-year terms. The office does not belong to us, but to the people. We are mere custodians of the office. I hope that, in our conduct, we can prove ourselves good and responsible stewards of this public trust. It is my sincere hope that now that the correction has been filed and the slander abated, this will be the last time any Member has the unpleasant duty of rising in this House to defend his or her reputation and the traditions of this institution. I hope that this single aberration will be remembered as just that: a single aberration. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). (Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, sixty years ago the guns and bombs in Europe fell silent, and President Truman announced victory over Europe to a proud and free world. I rise today to commemorate the 60th anniversary of this great and very important day, and to recognize the sacrifices and accomplishments of the men and women who so bravely served to defeat hate and aggression. I join millions of people participating in thousands of events, in New York City, all across the United States, and around the world, in observing and honoring the courage of American service-members, allied soldiers, and homefront workers. During April 1945, allied forces led by the United States overran Nazi Germany from the west while Russian forces advanced from the east. On April 25, American and Russian troops met at the Elbe River. After 6 years of war, suffering, and devastation, Nazi Germany was formally defeated a few days later on May 8, 1945. It was a bittersweet victory. Over 400,000 American soldiers died in World War II; 350,000 British soldiers gave their lives; and a staggering 20 million Russian soldiers and civilians perished in the war fighting German aggression on their home soil. The war also brought about the most horrendous systematic murder which humanity has ever known, the Holocaust. In memory of all the victims of World War II, it is our duty to raise our voices as one and say to the present and future generations that no one has the right to remain indifferent to anti-Semitism, xenophobia and racial or religious intolerance. This is an occasion to remember and commemorate. We must remember why the war was fought, remember the victims and heroes, and thank those who fought so hard and sacrificed so much. V-E Day marked the promise of a peaceful future for a Europe ravaged by unspeakable horror and war. Although freedom did not come to every European nation following the defeat of Nazi Germany, today we stand at the threshold of a very hopeful future based on sovereignty, democracy, freedom and cooperation. Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to honor those individuals who gave their lives during the liberation of Europe, to thank the veterans of World War II, and to commemorate the defeat of Nazism and Fascism by freedom-loving people. HONORING DR. PORTIA HOLMES SHIELDS

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution raising a question of the privileges of the House.