Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek). (Mr. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purposes of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 418 pursuant to House Resolution 75, it may be in order to consider amendment No. 4 in House Report 109-4 in the modified form I have placed at the desk.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman talks about section 102 of the bill, which gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the ability to waive all laws that might get in the way of building the fence; and he talks about environmental laws, and he talks about endangered species. Well, that is all well and good, but the radicalism and the irresponsibility of the majority is shown by how this is drafted. This does not refer to environmental laws. This does not refer to endangered species. This says the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive all laws in his sole discretion that he determines necessary. The Secretary of Homeland Security can tell the contractors, if anybody gets in your way, shoot them. Shoot them. The laws against men are waived. Laws against anything are waived. It makes him a total dictator. Then to make sure that the Secretary can be a total dictator in contravention of the Constitution, in contravention of all our laws, it then says, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any clause or claim arising from any decision the Secretary takes or to order any compensatory declarative injunctive, equitable or any other relief for damages alleged to have been suffered. So someone can be shot because the Secretary says shoot anybody that gets in the way by accident or deliberately and the courts cannot review whether the Secretary had the authority, whether this is constitutional. Last year we had certain court-stripping legislation before us to say that the court shall have no jurisdiction to hear a claim against the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. One other thing, I got up on this floor and I said, this is going to become boiler plate language in bills, and here it is. It did not even mention it. Boiler plate language. ``No court shall review any action the Secretary may take.'' I thought the Republican Party stood for limited government. This says the Secretary is absolute dictator, as absolute as Stalin. What kind of language is this? Regardless of the merits of this bill, regardless of the merits of this provision in general, this is disgraceful.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the supporters of this legislation are completely correct that obviously real terrorist threats exist and we must act forcefully to safeguard our national security. But this bill is really three or four or five separate bills entirely, some of them unexceptional, some of them very questionable. Under the excuse of national security, for example, the asylum provisions in this bill completely gut the possibility of many legitimate victims of persecution to be granted asylum. Asylum law is supposed to be about protecting individuals, including women and children, from serious human rights abuses; it is not supposed to be about seizing on any possible basis to deny a claim or return people to persecution. Proponents of this bill have been making dramatic claims about terrorists abusing the asylum system to get into this country to perform acts of terrorism. But since 9/11, in fact, since the 1996 act, most asylum-seekers are in jail while resolution of their cases are pending so they cannot pose a threat. What this bill does is to change the standards by which the judgment is made as to whether they should get asylum; but while it is being judged, they are in jail. So this has nothing to do with alleviating a threat to this country. For example, one provision would change current law to require that the applicant prove that his or her race, religion, et cetera is a central reason instead of merely a major reason for the legitimate fear of persecution in order to get asylum. This would force asylum applicants to prove the state of mind of their persecutors. What is the central reason of several different reasons? It makes it almost impossible to grant asylum. Now, this was not, and some of the points in the manager's amendment were not in the bill before us last year. No one has ever seen some of these provisions until yesterday. This provision, at least, and I am gratified that the Committee on Rules made the amendment to be in order by me and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) to strike this section of the bill, and in order for it to be passed tomorrow so that the Committee on the Judiciary can properly vet this bill or the asylum provisions can be properly looked at and we can deal with it adequately. This section, in my judgment, would subject hundreds, maybe thousands, of people to being tortured or abused or shot because of their race, color, religion, creed, or opposition to a dictatorial regime back home, because it would make it impossible for them to get asylum. I think when this House examines this carefully, and when the committee examines this carefully, it will come to that conclusion. Maybe we out to change the asylum provisions, but we ought to do it after careful consideration. So I hope that this bill will not be passed in its current form, and that my amendment will be passed so that we can give proper consideration to some of these provisions that do not really aid the national security, but do gut protection for people who need those protections.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this resolution would have us believe that a grave threat is presented to the security of this Nation by the policy of some institutions of higher learning to bar military recruiters from their campus because of the discrimination against gay and lesbian people by the military. But that, Mr. Speaker, is not the threat to our national security. The threat to our national security is the policy of the military to refuse to use the talents and the abilities of gay people in defending our country. One of the biggest problems we have in Iraq now is the shortage of people who know how to translate intelligence documents written in Arabic and Farsi, and yet they are dismissing linguists who can translate these documents for our use to save the lives of our troops because they are gay. This is insanity. Our troops are paying with their lives because of the bigotry that this Congress has mandated on the military, number one. Even that is not the real issue presented by this resolution. The real issue presented by this resolution has to do with free speech and association. Private universities, private institutions have chosen to say, as part of their free speech, that they do not want on their campus recruiters from any organization, the military, any private company, anybody else, that discriminates against gay people and lesbian people; that engages in an unacceptable, to them, form of discrimination. It is not a question, as this resolution says, of equal access to military recruiters. All people, recruiters from all institutions that discriminate are barred from these campuses. We should not have passed the bill that we did, but we passed a bill to say that, if they do that, if a private institution bars military recruiters and other recruiters on an equal basis, we will withhold Federal funds. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals says that is a violation of the first amendment. This resolution says who cares what the courts say. We do not care about the first amendment. We do not care about the courts. We know better. We encourage the executive branch to follow the doctrine of non- acquiescence and not find a decision affecting one jurisdiction to be binding on another jurisdiction. That is not the way we ought to legislate. This decision was decided by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The executive branch is going to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Let it appeal. Let us see what the Supreme Court says, if they accept the case. The courts have to defend our liberties. It is the province of the courts, not of the Congress, to declare what the Constitution means. Our liberties, the Bill of Rights, are protected from the majority. You never have to protect the majority from itself. You have to protect unpopular minorities. That is why we have a Bill of Rights and that is why we have the courts to enforce them. For Congress to come in and say the court is wrong and the executive should not enforce the order of the court is to show a disdain for the rule of law and a disdain for the spirit of liberty for which we are fighting in Iraq and for which our Armed Forces exists in the first place. This resolution ought to be defeated on its merits.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I solemnly rise today to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the first and largest Nazi concentration camp stumbled across by Allied troops as they fought back Nazi Germany. Today, the twin camps of Auschwitz-Birkenau are silent, yet full of the ghosts of horrors of boundless slaughter, torture and sadistic human experimentation. We lost over one million souls at Auschwitz alone. Over 5 million more innocent people with names, families and lives were murdered at several other Nazi concentration camps. On January 27, 1945, Allied troops marched by the ashes of those killed at Auschwitz, and freed the few remaining survivors. Tattooed with a number on their left forearm, and inconceivable torment in their minds and bodies, the survivors walked under the Auschwitz gate adorned with the words ``Arbeit Macht Frei'' or ``Work Makes Freedom'' as emancipated men and women. The survivors miraculously got on with their lives, although the pain of their memories did not diminish. Many have become successful doctors, teachers, writers and entrepreneurs. Others served valiantly in defending the state of Israel against hatemongers with similar intentions as the Nazis. Many others settled in New York's Eight Congressional District, which I proudly represent, and added immensely to New York City's soul and wealth of character. Theirs is a remarkable story of the human spirit. It is an appalling realization that 60 years after the Holocaust, the Jewish people are still persecuted, anti-Semitism remains prevalent in many parts of the world, and genocide occurs and is often ignored. As we commemorate this 60th anniversary, we face the terrible reality that anti-Semitism did not die in Auschwitz. Many of those who survived the holocaust are now reliving the unspeakable horror of anti-Semitic hatred for the sole reason of their religion and identity. Moreover, sixty years later, we continue to turn our backs on the victims of hatred and genocide. We failed to appropriately respond to devastation and death in Rwanda, and now we repeat our desertion of innocent women and children in Sudan. Let us honor the memories of those who died in Auschwitz and the Holocaust and the lives of those who survived it, by combating anti- Semitism, hate and bigotry today, tomorrow, and always. Let us never forget.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the right to vote has been stolen from qualified voters. Stolen through corruption, through political cynicism, through incompetence, through technical malfunction. Despite the fact that the widespread and documented irregularities in the Ohio election have not been proved to change the outcome of the presidential election, the loss of the right to vote by so many is unacceptable. Elections must not only be fair and honest, they must be seen to be fair and honest in order to maintain the legitimacy of our democratic institutions. This year we have dodged a bullet. If the apparent margin of victory in Ohio were closer, the Florida 2000 fiasco would look like a picnic. Mr. Speaker, normally the process of counting electoral votes is a purely ceremonial event. Normally it is a celebration of our democratic institutions. Normally it is a celebration of the rule of law and equal protection of all Americans under the law. But we do not live in normal times. the right to vote has been stolen from qualified voters--stolen through corruption, through political cynicism, and through incompetence, through technical malfunction. Regardless of the reason, the denial of the fundamental right to vote is a crime against our democracy, against our way of life, and against the most fundamental rights of every American. Despite the fact that the widespread and documented irregularities in the Ohio election have not been proved to have changed the outcome of the presidential election, the loss of the right to vote by so many is unacceptable. Elections must not only be fair and honest, they must be seen to be fair and honest in order to maintain the legitimacy of our democratic institutions. This year, we have dodged a bullet. The disgraceful events in Ohio may not have changed the outcome of the election, but a closer vote could well have made this belief impossible. If the apparent margin of victory in Ohio were 30,000 or 40,000 instead of 118,000, we would now be embroiled in a dispute that would make Florida in 2000 look like a picnic. What is at stake is our democracy. This is not about conspiracies, or phantoms. It is about the failure to count valid votes for invalid reasons. It is about disenfranchising thousands of voters by forcing them to wait on line 10 hours to cast their votes. It is about the co- chair of the President's reelect committee serving as the chief election officer for the state, and doing everything possible to prevent voters from voting. It is about voting machines that invalidate valid votes. We are told to get over it. How do you get over having your vote stolen? How do you get over widespread disenfranchisement? This Congress must fully investigate these allegations, and we must act to prevent these outrages from happening again. If these outrages were criminal violations of our laws, those responsible must be brought to justice. If they were not violations of the law, they ought to be. Our next election must not again steal people's votes. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle should not let partisan politics stand in the way of an honest assessment of this election. They should not ignore what happened. However they vote today, they should commit themselves to a full and fair investigation. Anything less would suggest that they think there is something to hide. It would suggest that there is a partisan coverup. We can do better. We must do better.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the point of order. The Constitution defines a quorum to conduct business as the majority of each House. The question of course before us in this debate is, a majority of what? What is the denominator in that equation? The precedent holds that the total number of the membership of the House is those Members who are chosen, sworn and living and whose membership has not been terminated by action of the House. Removal by action of the House is also a defined term, expulsion by a vote of two- thirds in article 1, section 5. The Constitution also gives the House the authority to compel attendance when Members do not answer the call of the Chair in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide. And, in fact, the Sergeant at Arms has been sent to gather Members by force on prior occasions. This amendment before us to the rules gives the Speaker nearly unfettered authority to change the number of the Members of the whole House to exclude Members who are chosen, sworn, and living but who do not answer the call of the Chair. This would seem to amount to a constructive expulsion without a two-thirds vote of the whole House. For example, suppose the House is at its full complement of 435 Members. A quorum would then be 218. Now, suppose only 400 Members answer the Speaker's call for whatever reason. They are still living. They are still chosen. They are still sworn. They have not been expelled. Now a quorum by order of the Speaker would be 200. The House may conduct its business with only 200 Members present. If this is triggered in a time of national emergency, the consequences could be dire. Mr. Speaker, we heard the distinguished chair, or maybe he is only the presumptive chair, of the Committee on Rules, at this point; but in any event, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) said a moment ago that this proposed rules change is constitutional because the Constitution could not have contemplated that the House could not function. But the Constitution did not contemplate that the majority of the Members of the House might in fact be the victims of an act of mass terrorism. Those things were not contemplated at the time. The fact is we do need to amend the Constitution to take care of this very serious question; but this provision for the reasons stated by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), for the reasons that I stated a moment ago, is clearly unconstitutional. Certainly, before we take such a measure, it deserves much more extensive debate and hearings and discussion than it can have by three or four speakers in this context now. So I urge that Members take careful consideration to the question of constitutionality here. This may provoke court action, and we should not adopt this now in the context of an overall rules change with this very serious amendment to the Constitution, which is what it amounts to; it cannot receive adequate consideration in terms of its constitutionality either in terms of its merit.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Martin Luther King High School Soccer Team, which has achieved a New York City Public School Athletic League record 5th consecutive title this year. Part of the oldest High School sports league in the nation, the MLK soccer team has battled many of the top teams in the City and has continually prevailed. Having been nationally ranked the last 6 years and boasting an overall record over the last 9 years of 221 wins, 14 losses, and three ties, a 93 percent winning percentage, the MLK soccer team has once again reclaimed a championship they have held for 8 of the last 9 years. This is the all-time record for number of championships held by any New York City public school. The team is coached by Martin Jacobson, who has been with the team during the entirety of this its impressive run. In addition to being recognized and written about in a number of local newspapers, the team's accomplishments have also been acknowledged by the Students Sports Soccer website, which ranked them 25th out of soccer teams in the country this year. Many players have not only been driven to succeed on the soccer field, but have gone on to renowned colleges around the country. I am pleased to congratulate the Martin Luther King High School's Soccer Team. The team's Awards dinner, being held at the School on December 16th, will rightfully honor a group of talented people who I am proud to represent in the 8th Congressional District of New York. I wish them all a joyous celebratory dinner and many more successful seasons.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his great service to this body, to the people of the United States. And let me express my regret that he will not be yielding time in the future. Mr. Speaker, this bill comes before us is an omnibus bill because we did not take all the bills, vote on them on the floor, and the Senate did not do it either. This bill has some real inadequacies in its appropriation. In what promises to be a very cold winter, an inadequate LIHEAP appropriation; a $10 million cut in housing for people with AIDS, as if that scourge is going away from us; and a lot of other inadequacies in funding. What I want to focus on is a major policy change that has been referred to by several other speakers, the so-called Weldon gag rule. This Federal refusal clause would allow not just hospitals but insurance companies, HMOs, to order their doctors not to perform abortions, not to refer people to abortions, not to tell people about abortion as an option. So whose conscience are we protecting? The board of directors of the insurance company? The doctors? The patients? This is an outrage, because it will mean that women who want to have abortions, that women who might want to have abortions, that doctors who think they ought to tell women about their options are told to shut up. By Federal law they cannot do this, because we care about limiting access to a constitutional right, because that is the real purpose of this. The proposal would preclude State and local governments with oversight authority from enforcing basic health care certifications and licensing requirements in the area of abortion; and in deciding whether to approve a hospital merger, for instance, they could not say no if this would decrease the availability of abortion services or even referral services in an area. Under the bill, States would be precluded from requiring that health care companies provide even referrals for abortion services as a condition for participating in the Medicaid program. Now, this invasion of States rights, this invasion of the conscience of the women, this invasion of the conscience of the doctors is very deliberate. It is because the people who wrote this clause do not want people to have the freedom to decide for themselves, do not want them to be able to avail themselves of their constitutional rights. This is not a conscience protection clause. This is a gag rule, and it ought to be defeated.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Gilda's Club of New York City, on the occasion of its 10th anniversary. In 1995, Gilda's Club opened its doors in honor of the late Gilda Radner. While most well-known for her work as a comedienne, Radner's legacy carries on in the Club because of her wish that people living with cancer, as she did so bravely, would find a community with which to talk and seek comfort while fighting the disease. A festive gala, ``Celebrating Gilda,'' will be held on November 4th to mark the success and progress of Gilda's Club over the past ten years. Gilda's Club, a non-profit organization with both of its branches located in my Congressional district, was founded upon the premise that ``when cancer happens, it happens to the entire family,'' a message so eloquently conveyed by Radner herself. Gilda's Club is premised on the belief that while doctors can treat the physical effects of cancer, the emotional effects of the disease must also be treated. The Club provides a comprehensive emotional and social support community for anyone whose life has been touched by cancer in any way, free of charge. Its Basic III Plus membership provides programs ranging from Support and Networking Groups, to education in Lectures and Workshops, to a playful yet supportive atmosphere for children in Noogieland, all designed to channel strength, hope and solidarity to all participants. The current membership of the Club is 3,615, and the Club has now passed the milestone of 100,000 member visits. An organization with a resolute mission, a compassionate heart, and an intrinsic sense of humor, Gilda's Club is a valued asset to the New York community. Testimonials, such as that of one member who said that ``this club has shined light and hope into some of the darkest corners of my life,'' coupled with the growing membership numbers are a clear indication of the Club's magnificent achievements. I am delighted to wish Gilda's Club a joyous and memorable 10th anniversary celebration, and to convey my sincere wishes for a thriving and prosperous second decade.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on September 12, 2004 a service was held for the 350th anniversary of the Congregation Shearith Israel in New York City. The Congregation, founded by 23 impoverished Brazilian Jews seeking refuge in New Amsterdam, marked the beginning of Jewish life in America. What began as a small settlement, nearly 122 years before American independence, grew into a community that not only benefited from the equality and religious freedom found here, but had a profound influence on such ideals over the course of American history. The American Jewish community has played a role in the extension of freedom, justice and social equality to all our people. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record the sermon given by Rabbi Marc D. Angel on the occasion of the 350th anniversary of the Congregation Shearith Israel. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.'' These words from the American Declaration of Independence reflect the deepest ideals and aspirations of the American people. America is not merely a country, vast and powerful; America is an idea, a vision of life as it could be. When these words were first proclaimed on July 4, 1776, Congregation Shearith Israel was almost 122 years old. It was a venerable community, with an impressive history--a bastion of Jewish faith and tradition, and an integral part of the American experience. When the British invaded New York in 1776, a large group of congregants including our Hazan Rev. Gershom Mendes Seixas, left the city rather than live under British rule. Many joined the Revolutionary army and fought for American independence. Some remained in New York, and conducted services in our synagogue building on Mill Street. Early in the war, two British soldiers broke into the synagogue and desecrated two Torah scrolls. This was not just an attack on scrolls, but was a symbolic assault on the spiritual foundations of Judaism, the self-same foundations upon which the American republic has been built. In our service today, we read from one of these Torah scrolls as a symbolic response to those soldiers, and to all those who would seek to undermine the eternal teachings of Torah and the principles of American democracy: we are not intimidated, we are not afraid. Generation by generation, we will continue to live by our ideals and by our faith. Generation by generation, we will lend our strength to the great American enterprise that promises hope and freedom, one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all. Our story in America is not built on historical abstractions, but on generations of Jews who have played their roles in the unfolding of this nation. It is a very personal history, ingrained in our collective memory. Attending this service today are descendants of Jews of the Colonial period, whose ancestors served in the American Revolution; descendants of families including de Lucena, Gomez, Nathan, Hendricks, Phillips, Franks, Cardozo, Seixas. We welcome descendants of Rev. Johannes Polhemus, minister of the Dutch Reformed Church, who was on the same ship as the first group of 23 Jews who arrived in New Amsterdam in September 1654. We welcome representatives of our sister congregations that date back to the Colonial period: from the Touro Synagogue in Newport; from Mikveh Israel in Philadelphia; we have representatives or words of congratulations from the historic congregations in Savannah, Charleston and Richmond. We welcome members of our sister congregation, the Spanish and Portuguese community of London. We welcome elected officials and representatives. We welcome officers of the 20th precinct, who serve our community with courage and dedication. We welcome leaders of the American Jewish community, and those who have worked so hard for Celebrate 350, the national umbrella group commemoration the 350th anniversary of American Jewry. Indeed we welcome all congregants and friends who have gathered here today on this historic occasion. A number of those present today participated in the Tercentenary celebrations of 1954. We have a member here today whose mother--now 107 years old--was part of our community during the 250th anniversary celebrations in 1904/ 5. Among us are descendants of Jews from all parts of the world, Jews who came to America at different times and under different circumstances; including those who are themselves first generation Americans and first generation Jews. For 350 years, our generations have been part of the American experience, and have striven to make this a better nation. We have just read from the Revolutionary Period Torah scroll, from the section know as ``Kedoshim'', only a few columns from where the British soldier damaged the scroll. Kedoshim opens with a challenge to the people of Israel to be a holy nation, to live according to the commandments of God, to have the courage and inner strength to maintain Torah ideals in a world that is not always receptive to such lofty teachings. The portion goes on to specify how we are to manifest holiness: through charity; honesty; commitment to truth and justice; through the avoidance of gossip and hatred. It culminates with the words: ve-ahavta le-re-aha kamokha, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself. The very principles of enjoined by this passage are the spiritual foundations of the United States of America. These teachings are constant reminders of how to live a good life and build a righteous society; they also are prods to make us realize how far short we fall from these ideals, how much more work remains to be done. On this 350th anniversary of the American Jewish community, we reflect on the courage and heroic efforts of our forbearers who have maintained Judaism as a vibrant and living force in our lives. We express gratitude to America for having given us--and all citizens--the freedom to practice our faith. This very freedom has energized and strengthened America. Within Congregation Shearith Israel, we have been blessed with men and women who have helped articulate Jewish ideals and American ideals. Their voices have blended with the voices of fellow Americans of various religions and races, to help shape the dream and reality of America. The American Declaration of Independence pronounced that all men are created equal. In his famous letter to the Jewish community of Newport, in August 1790, President George Washington hailed the United States for allowing its citizens freedom--not as a favor bestowed by one group on another--but in recognition of the inherent natural rights of all human beings. This country, wrote President Washington, ``gives bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance''. And yet, if equality and human dignity are at the core of American ideals, the fulfillment of these ideals have required--and still require--sacrifice and devotion. Reality has not always kept up with the ideal. In 1855, Shearith Israel member Uriah Phillips Levy--who rose to the rank of Commodore in the U.S. Navy--was dropped from the Navy's active duty list. He was convinced that anti-Semitism was at the root of this demotion. He appealed the ruling and demanded justice. He asked: are people ``now to learn to their sorrow and dismay that we too have sunk into the mire of religious intolerance and bigotry? . . . What is my case today, if you yield to this injustice, may tomorrow be that of the Roman Catholic or the Unitarian, the Presbyterian or the Methodist, the Episcopalian or the Baptist. There is but one safeguard: that is to be found in honest, whole-hearted, inflexible support of the wise, the just the impartial guarantee of the Constitution.'' Levy won his case. He helped the United States remain true to its principles. Shearith Israel member Moses Judah (1735-1822) believed that all men were created equal--including black men. In 1799, he was elected to the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves. During his tenure on the standing committee between 1806 and 1809, about 50 slaves were freed. Through his efforts, many other slaves achieved freedom. He exerted himself to fight injustice, to expand the American ideals of freed and equality regardless of race or religion. Another of our members, Maud Nathan, believed that all men were created equal but so were all women created equal. She was a fiery, internationally renowned suffragette, who worked tirelessly to advance a vision of America that indeed recognized the equality of all its citizens--men and women. As president of the consumer league of New York from 1897- 1917, Maud Nathan was a pioneer in social activism, working for the improvement of working conditions of employees in New York's department stores. Equality and human dignity were the rights of all Americans, rich and poor, men and women. The Declaration of Independence proclaimed that human beings have unalienable rights; among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These words express the hope and optimism of America. They are a repudiation of the tyranny and oppression that prevailed--and still prevail--in so many lands. America is a land of opportunity, where people can live in freedom. The pursuit of happiness really signifies the pursuit of self-fulfillment, of a meaningful way of life. America's challenge was--and still is--to create a harmonious society that allows us to fulfill our potentials. President George Washington declared a day of national Thanksgiving for November 26, 1789. Shearith Israel held a service, at which Hazan Gershom Mendes Seizas called on this congregation ``to unite, with cheerfulness and uprightness . . . to promote that which has a tendency to the public good.'' Hazzan Seixas believed that Jews, in being faithful to Jewish tradition, would be constructive and active participants in American society. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were not reserved only for those born in America; they are the rights of all human beings everywhere. This notion underlies the idealism of the American dream, calling for a sense of responsibility for all suffering people, whether at home or abroad. American Jews have been particularly sensitive and responsive to this ideal. On March 8th, 1847, Hazan Jacques Judah Lyons addressed a gathering at Shearith Israel for the purpose of raising funds for Irish famine relief. The potato crop in Ireland had failed in 1846, resulting in widespread famine. Hazan Lyons well realized that the Jewish community needed charitable dollars for its own internal needs; and yet he insisted that Jews reach out and help the people of Ireland. He said that there was one indestructible and all-powerful link between us and the Irish sufferers: ``That link, my brethren, is HUMANITY! Its appeal to hear surmounts every obstacle. Clime, color, sect are barriers which impede not its progress thither.'' In assisting with Irish famine relief, the Jewish community reflected its commitment to the well-being of all suffering human beings. American Jewry grew into--and has continued to be--a great philanthropic community perhaps unmatched in history. Never have so few given so much to so many. In this, we have been true to our Jewish tradition, and true to the spirit of America. Who articulated the hope and promise of America more eloquently than Emma Lazarus? ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door.'' How appropriate is it that her poem is affixed to the great symbol of American freedom, the Statue of Liberty. Alice Menken, (for many years president of our Sisterhood) did remarkable work to help immigrants, to assist young women who ran into trouble with the law, to promote reform of the American prison system. She wrote: ``We must seek a balanced philosophy of life. We must live to make the world worth living in, with new ideals, less suffering, and more joy.'' Americans see ourselves as one nation, indivisible, under God, with liberty and justice for all. Yet, liberty and justice are not automatically attained. They have required-- and still require--wisdom, vigilance, and active participation. American legal tradition has been enriched by the insights and the work of many American Jews. In one of his essays, Justice Benjamin Nathan Cardozo--a devoted member of Shearith Israel--referred to a Talmudic passage which has been incorporated into our prayer book. It asks that the Almighty let His mercy prevail over strict justice. Justice Cardozo reminded us that the American system relies not only on justice--but on mercy. Mercy entails not merely an understanding of laws, but an understanding of the human predicament, of human nature, of the circumstances prevailing in human society. Another of our members, Federal Judge William Herlands, echoed this sentiment when he stated the Justice without Mercy--is just ice! Our late rabbis Henry Pereira Mendes, David de Sola Pool and Louis C. Gerstein, were singularly devoted to social welfare, to religious education, to the land of Israel. They distinguished themselves for their devotion to Zionism, and played their parts in the remarkable unfolding of the State of Israel. They, along with so many American Jews, have keenly understood how much unites Israel and the United States--two beacons of democracy and idealism in a very troubled world. These individuals--along with so many other American Jews-- were exponents of the American ideals and the American dream. During the past 350 years, the American Jewish community has accomplished much and contributed valiantly to all aspects of American life. We have been free to practice our faith and teach our Torah. We have worked with Americans of others faiths and traditions to mold a better, stronger, more idealistic nation. America today is not just a powerful and vast country. It is also an idea, a compelling idea that has a message for all people in all lands. As American Jews, we are committed to the ideals of freedom and equality, human dignity and security, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the pursuit of harmony among ourselves and throughout the world. We have come far as a nation, but very much remains to be done. May God give us the strength and the resolve to carry on, to work proudly as Jews to bring the American dream to many more generations of humanity. I close with a prayer spoken by Mordecai Manuel Noah at the consecration of our second Mill Street Synagogue on April 17, 1818: ``May we prove ever worthy of His blessing; may He look down from His heavenly abode, and send us peace and comfort; may He instill in our minds a love of country, of friends, and of all mankind. Be just, therefore, and fear not. That God who brought us out of the land of Egypt, who walked before us like `a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night,' will never desert his people Israel.''

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this bill is not the 9/11 Commission recommendations. This bill is John Ashcroft's wish list. Ground Zero is in my district, and I understand the grave danger and harsh reality of terrorism. It is absolutely imperative that we implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and strengthen our security and win the war on terrorism. Unfortunately, House Republicans would rather play partisan political games on the eve of the election. The 9/11 Commission recommended that homeland security grants be distributed based on risk, but this bill contains a political pork barrel funding formula that directs funds away from key targets like New York and Washington, D.C. The 9/11 Commission recommended that we strengthen counterproliferation efforts to prevent al Qaeda from getting nuclear weapons. This bill ignores that recommendation and does little to prevent the terrorists from exploding atomic bombs in our cities. This bill even fails to establish a strong, independent National Intelligence, by not providing that office with sufficient authority over the budget and personnel of other intelligence agencies. House Republicans are once again wrapping themselves in the flag and in 9/11 to hide the fact that they are loading up this bill with questionable provisions that will not make us safer but will undermine our civil liberties. For example, this bill would permit people to be deported to countries that engage in torture. This will not stop terrorists from entering the United States. It would not have stopped the 9/11 terrorists. If we do have suspected terrorists among us, we should not deport them. We should charge them, interrogate them and convict them. This bill includes egregious provisions that would expand the secret surveillance powers of the Federal Government and relax grand jury secrecy requirements while depriving people of their constitutionally protected right to due process and to the writ of habeas corpus. It would give the Federal Government new authority to revoke visas and deny asylum without judicial review. This legislation is a betrayal of the families and the hard and thorough work of the 9/11 Commission. Commission Chairman Thomas Kean and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton have asked the House Republicans to remove extraneous provisions and pass a clean bill. The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Miami Herald, to name a few, call this bill a ``political sideshow'' and ``election-year posturing.'' They see this bill for what it is, a step in the wrong direction that in many cases does the opposite of what the 9/11 Commission recommended. The House Republicans should stop playing politics with the war on terrorism and start protecting the American people. As those of us from New York know all too well, we must do everything we can to prevent another September 11. I urge my colleagues to defeat this legislation and pass a bill that will actually make us safer.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the North American Conference on Ethiopian Jewry on the occasion of the first annual Adopt-A-Student reunion in Israel. On October 13th there will be a first-time reunion of Ethiopian Israeli graduates that were able to obtain education because of NACOEJ. Hundreds of American sponsors who provide support, correspondence and financial assistance have arranged to travel to Israel to take part in the celebration. NACOEJ was founded in 1982 to help Jews cope with living conditions in Ethiopia; provide educational opportunities; aid with their emigration to Israel; and help aid the absorption of the emigres into Israel's society while preserving their unique and ancient culture. In Ethiopia, NACOEJ is the sole supporter of compounds in Addis Ababa and Gondar Province providing 10,000 meals to babies, children, and pregnant or nursing women daily. In addition, it supports Jewish Day Schools for 3,500 students, as well as adult education, employment training, family food distributions and religious facilities. In Ethiopia generations of Jews were always among the poorest inhabitants. Families faced poverty, famines and malaria epidemics while malnutrition, disease and civil war were a part of daily life. Yet since 1984, 2,200 Ethiopian Israeli university students have received NACOEJ living stipends that many times can mean the difference between dropping out and graduating. Many people that relocated to Israel are now leading free, fulfilling and fruitful lives because of the work this group does. For their generosity, for their commitment to freedom and democracy in Ethiopia and Israel, and for their unyielding commitment to improving the lives of people in the worst of conditions, it is my privilege to honor the North American Conference on Ethiopian Jewry.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise in support of the Advancing Justice Through DNA Act. Although the science of DNA analysis has vastly improved our ability to identify the guilty and to exonerate the innocent, neither our laws nor the resources we have made available have allowed our criminal justice system to make full use of that technology. This legislation would go a long way toward correcting that terrible gap. I want to congratulate, in particular, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) who introduced the Innocence Protection Act several years ago and has worked tirelessly on this matter ever since. We all owe him a great debt of gratitude. No one whose innocence can be proved by DNA evidence should languish in prison because of procedural or financial obstacles to the use of that DNA evidence, and no one whose guilt can be proved by DNA evidence should remain unconvicted and free to menace others because of procedural or financial obstacles to the use of that DNA evidence. It is imperative, in connection with one of the titles of this bill, that we eliminate the shameful backlog of untested rape kits, and this bill will go a long way towards that goal. I have worked with NOW, RAINN and Lifetime Television to raise awareness of this issue and to build consensus for decisive action. Together, we have pushed, prodded and demanded that Federal funding be provided to test these kits quickly. Today, we are one step closer to that goal. I am pleased that this bill includes a provision very similar to the Rape Kit DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act, which I introduced in March of 2002. That legislation would have provided $250 million to eliminate the rape kit backlog. I am also pleased that, like my bill and like the bill introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), this legislation adds funding specifically for rape kits. But we are not there yet. These programs still need to be funded, and I am hopeful that we will not simply authorize funding for these programs, as this bill does and as I hope the Senate will go along with, but I am hopeful that we will also actually appropriate the money we are today acknowledging is needed to do the job right. This issue is too important to ignore. Police departments must have the resources they need to solve crimes and put criminals behind bars. This legislation represents a serious effort to combat crime, to locate and apprehend rapists, to use powerful evidence to put them in prison, and in the larger sense, it also represents a serious effort to take out of prison people who do not belong there in light of the capability of DNA evidence to prove their innocence. We have adopted similar legislation before. I urge its adoption now, and I hope the Senate will go along. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to commemorate the opening of New York's newest museum, located in my Congressional District in Manhattan's Chelsea neighborhood. The Rubin Museum of Art (RMA), a cultural and educational institution dedicated to the art of the Himalayan region, opens this week with a series of fascinating exhibitions and programs. With a collection spanning the 2nd to 19th Centuries, combining a variety of artistic mediums from paintings to stone sculptures and textiles, this museum will showcase a diverse and vast compilation of historical and sacred art. The inaugural exhibitions are certainly a testimony to the comprehensiveness of this artistic display. Each of the Museum's six floors and theater level gallery features a different exhibit, with educational wall texts and interpretive panels providing another dimension of thought and understanding for both the casual and more experienced museumgoer. The Museum is also home to a state-of-the- art theater, a classroom, and a space for contemporary and historical photography. RMA's commitment to serving a broad and diverse audience is further evidenced by the wide range of programs offered. RMA has established an innovative Museum Campus program through which it has forged working relationships with the colleges and universities in downtown Manhattan. The Museum's educational programs bring arts education to many public schools and students from underserved communities. Among the future scheduled events are ArtTalks with the Museum's chief curator, Caron Smith, as well as lectures by noted art historians and professors, and poetry and music by contemporary artists. I am pleased to congratulate the Rubin Museum of Art and all those whose contributions and efforts made the opening of this creative and new enriching cultural center possible, especially the founders Donald and Shelley Rubin. Lifelong New Yorkers, they have been assembling what is now America's largest collection of Himalayan art for over 25 years. Their desire to give back to the City that they love benefits not only New York and its visitors but the world at large. I am proud to join the artistic community of New York in the celebration of the Rubin Museum of Art and its mission of establishing, preserving and presenting to the public a permanent collection of Himalayan art, which accurately reflects its vitality, complexity and historical significance.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished majority leader said that this amendment is about protecting children. With all due respect, it has nothing to do with protecting children. Gay people, lesbian people raise children today. They have children. They raise them. The laws of many States permit them to adopt children and they do. What this amendment is aimed at doing is aimed at preventing any State from bringing some stability to the lives of those children by allowing their lesbian or gay couples who have legal custody of those children, who are raising those children, to be able to get married. And this amendment says never mind what the electorate says, never mind what the legislature says, we do no want those parents to be able to be married. So do not tell us this is about protecting children. Whatever it is about, it is not about that.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time, and I thank him for those kind words. Mr. Speaker, today the drumbeat of political demagoguery has reached its crescendo as the House prepared to consider an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning marriage between persons of the same gender. This amendment does not belong in our Constitution. It is unworthy of this great Nation, and the Senate could not even muster a simple majority to consider it, much less the requisite two-thirds to adopt it. We have amended the Constitution only 27 times in our history. Constitutional amendments have been used to enhance and expand the rights of citizens, not to take them away. The Constitution was amended to add the Bill of Rights, protecting freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the right to be secure in our homes; 10 amendments for protection of individual rights and liberties. We amended the Constitution to wipe away permanently the stain of slavery, to expand the right to vote, to expand the right of citizenship, to allow for the direct election of Senators, and to allow for the income tax. Now we are being asked to amend the Constitution again to single out a single unpopular group and say permanently, you cannot even attempt to convince the legislature of your State to give you the right to marry. We have certainly never amended the Constitution on the mere speculation that a court might rule a law unconstitutional. No court has struck down as unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act that we passed 8 years ago. There is not even a case pending before any appellate court in this country today. There has not been a single trial-level court decision holding the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional; and yet we are told this necessity is imposed upon us. We must protect marriage now. What an imaginary threat. In fact, the amendment before us is a new version of the amendment. It was not introduced until the end of last week. Although this issue has been the subject of four hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary, this proposed amendment and its potential impact on State marriage laws, historically a right of the States, has not. When the sponsor of the amendment appeared before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, she was not prepared to comment on a similar version or any version other than the one she had introduced, which is not the one today before us. The Committee on the Judiciary has not marked up this amendment, either in subcommittee or full committee, although the designation of the oak tree as the national tree has merited such careful deliberation. That is a first. My Republican friends, as amendment- happy as they are, have never previously skipped over committee consideration to bring a just-introduced constitutional amendment to the floor. But I understand them. What is the Constitution between friends? Why should we consider it carefully? As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I am normally called upon to explain proposed constitutional amendments. Explaining this one requires some extra effort. From what, precisely, would the so-called marriage protection amendment protect marriage? From no-fault divorce? From legalized fornication? From the failure of States to incarcerate adulterers, perhaps? No. Evidently, the threat to marriage, so-called, is the fact that there are thousands of people in this country who very much believe in marriage, who very much want to marry, who may not marry under the laws of the various States of this country, but whose fellow citizens may conceivably one day permit them to do so; and that we must prevent. I have been searching in vain for some indication of what might happen to my marriage or to the marriage of anyone in this room if loving couples, including couples who have had children for years, are permitted to enjoy the blessings of matrimony. If there is a Member of this House who believes that his or her own marriage would be destabilized or destroyed by a same-sex marriage somewhere in America, I would welcome an explanation as to what you think would happen to your marriage and why. Any takers? The overheated rhetoric we have been hearing is reminiscent of the bellicose fearmongering that followed the Supreme Court's 1967 Loving v. Virginia, which struck down State prohibitions against interracial marriage. The Supreme Court had overstepped its authority, we were told. The Supreme Court had overridden the democratic will of the majority. The Supreme Court had signed a death warrant for all that is good and pure in this Nation. Fortunately, we have survived as a Nation; and we are the better for it. In the not-too-distant future, people will look back on these debates with the same incredulity we now view the segregationist debates of years past. This amendment does more than it purports to do. It would preempt any State law or legislature from passing a law allowing people of the same gender to marry, even if that law was approved by the legislature or, for that matter, by referendum of the people. This is not to protect the States; this is to protect a notion against the democratic will of the majority of the people in the States. Read the first sentence: any such marriage would be unconstitutional. Proponents of this amendment have already tried to use a similar prohibition against same-sex marriage to attack domestic partner benefits in courts. So do not tell me this is only about marriage. I do not believe it. It says nothing in this amendment about recognition of marriages from one State to another. If you want to allow democratic majorities to have their way within their own borders, this amendment will do the exact opposite. There are many loving families who deserve the benefits and protections of the law. They do not live just in New York or San Francisco or Boston. They live in every one of the 435 congressional districts in the United States. They are not from outer space, they are not a public menace, and they do not threaten anyone. They are our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends, our siblings, our parents, and our children. They deserve to be treated fairly. They deserve to have the rights of any other family. I regret that this House is being so demeaned by this debate. It saddens me that this great institution would sink to these depths even on the eve of an election. We know this is not going anywhere. We know it is merely a political exercise. Shame on this House for playing politics with bigotry.

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), Democratic leader.