Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we have to be very careful that because of this war on the Islamic terrorists we do not destroy our own civil liberties. The PATRIOT Act was passed in great haste, and parts of it do exactly that. The gentleman from Virginia says this amendment should not be considered without hearings by the Committee on the Judiciary and given proper consideration, but the fact is there were no hearings before we passed the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act was warm to the touch. No one read it before it passed this House. No one knew what was in it. The bill that came out of committee was not the bill considered by the House. So that is where the original flaw lies. We should now pass this amendment not to make libraries an exempt zone. As the sponsor, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), said, police will still be able to obtain records, so long as they can justify their actions based on probable cause. What is the difference if this amendment passes? The difference is between good police work and a fishing expedition. Do we want the government rummaging through the records of average Americans without reason, or do we want to insist at the very least that searches be based on probable cause? That is the issue. That is the issue: probable cause. The Supreme Court of the United States, the Rehnquist court, gave a rap in the teeth to the administration last week for claiming powers that no executive in an English-speaking society has claimed since before Magna Carta. We do not want tyranny. We do not want tyranny. 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, if the government suspects someone is looking up how to make atom bombs, go to a court and get a search warrant, show probable cause. That is the way it worked for 200 years. It worked against the Nazis in World War II, it worked in the Civil War, and it will work today. We need not surrender fundamental liberty, and we should not. That is what this amendment is about, and that is why we should urge its adoption.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, in most of our wars, we have done things that have trampled civil liberties in the name of national security. Invariably we end up apologizing for it later when historians say that the internment of the Japanese Americans in World War II or the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 or whatever did not, in fact, aid national security. We are doing it again. The Supreme Court 1\1/2\ weeks ago made very clear that we cannot simply hold people indefinitely by labeling them an enemy combatant. They gave a broad hint that when the Padilla case comes up, they will tell us that this amendment is mild, and that the power the President claims to throw anybody in jail in the United States because the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) says that the United States is a battlefield and hold them there indefinitely simply on their own say-so with no due process, this is a power that nobody has claimed since before the Magna Carta. Habeas corpus was invented to say that the President is a President; even a king is not a dictator. Let me finally say that this amendment is necessary to say that we will fight this war against the terrorists, but we will fight it as Americans in the tradition of liberty.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I will quote from Sir Thomas More in the play ``A Man for all Seasons,'' because we are told we must eliminate our traditions of liberty to get at the terrorists. Sir Thomas More was asked: ``So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law? And More said: ``Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?'' ``I'd cut down every law in England to do that.'' And Sir Thomas More finally said: ``Oh? And when the last law was down and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast, and if you cut them down, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.'' And that is why this amendment must pass.

Mr. NADLER. My parliamentary inquiry is twofold. How much time has elapsed on this vote, and how much time will be allowed on this vote beyond what the rules provide for? How much time has elapsed on this vote? The time has expired. How much time has elapsed on this vote? Are we going to hold this vote open until enough arms are twisted?

Mr. NADLER. I have two parliamentary inquiries. One you did not answer I asked before. How much time has elapsed on this vote so far? Not the minimum. How much time so far has elapsed?

Mr. NADLER. That was not my question.

Mr. NADLER. My second question, sir, is I do not see anyone in the well waiting to vote. Is there anyone in the well waiting to vote? Parliamentary Inquiry Ms. PELOSI (during the vote). Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the American Association of Invalids and Veterans of World War II from the former USSR. As members of the Russian army, this group fiercely fought German occupation from 1941 to 1945, and after fighting post-war anti-Semitism in their own country, they immigrated to the New York City area. Tuesday marked the 63rd anniversary of Germany's invasion of the former Soviet Union. Today, I am pleased to welcome them to Washington D.C. as they visit the World War II Memorial, and to honor their contribution in fighting for peace and liberty in Europe. The group of Russian Veterans I honor today fought in many battles along the Russian front in World War II, and in major battles in Odessa, Moscow, and Stalingrad. As we recently honored millions of brave Americans with the opening of the World War II Memorial, I also recognize this group of veterans for their contribution to the Allied victory. Through their efforts in the Russian armed forces, these soldiers played an important role in defeating the Nazis--a victory which they celebrated in the streets of Berlin alongside American soldiers. Their common experiences in the war, in its aftermath, and as immigrants to the United States bind them deeply to one another. As The New York Times explained, ``As Jews who shared both the deprivations of a brutal war against Hitler's forces and postwar anti-Semitism under a Soviet system they had risked their lives to preserve, their allegiance is not to the former Soviet Union, nor to the Red Army, nor even to Mother Russia, but to one another.'' Though the association began in 1995 with only 30 veterans, it now boasts 3,000 members in New York. For their patriotism, for their commitment to freedom and democracy in Europe, and for their unyielding commitment to each other, it is my privilege to honor the American Association of Invalids and Veterans of World War II from the former USSR, and to warmly welcome them to Washington D.C.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, these feel-good resolutions that we passed last night and are considering today do not change the facts. The facts are that this country is not united. It is very divided over this war. The facts are we did not invade Iraq for the purpose of instituting a democracy. We invaded Iraq because we were told that Iraq threatened us with weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq was responsible, to some extent, for collaborating with al Qaeda and producing the catastrophe of 9/11. We were misled into Iraq by the administration that either lied to the American people or led us into war by use of falsehoods stated out of ignorance. We are told by this resolution that we are creating a sovereign Iraq now; and, yet, on page 7 of the resolution the American troops there remain under American command. That is a slight contradiction. How can Iraq be sovereign when we control the military over there? We are told that we are creating a democratic Iraq. Anybody who knows anything knows we are not going to have a democratic Iraq for many years, maybe decades. We will be happy to figure out a way to get out of this quagmire without leaving behind mass chaos, civil war, communal slaughter and betraying the Kurds a third time. We also know that this war in Iraq is a diversion from the real war against the Islamic terrorists who thrust war upon us, a war we must fight but that we are being diverted from. We know that it is harder to take the necessary action, if it may be necessary, if a real nuclear threat of nuclear proliferation arises perhaps in Iran because we cried wolf in Iraq. How will we persuade Congress or the American people that we have to do something real if a real threat arises, not a phantom threat that we reacted to? Our actions in Abu Ghraib and perhaps elsewhere still to be properly investigated have shamed this Nation and engendered further hatred of the United States across the world. So let us not celebrate this catastrophe. Let us not pass resolutions that do not bear any relation to the world. Let us figure out how to get out of this catastrophe as best we can.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I think that some of the remarks that were made in the last couple of minutes seem to indicate that not everyone understands what this amendment does. This amendment does not limit the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security to say that next year the same 80 cities or 50 cities and 30 transit organizations that have grants now have to get grants again. It simply says that no more than 80 may get grants, that we cannot dilute it further. Now, the threat may change, as the distinguished chairman as said, in which case, the Department retains the ability, the discretion to change where the grants go. What this amendment does, however, is to say that the threat is not diluted. The threat is not getting wider and wider and wider. We may have more intelligence that this city is a bigger threat as opposed to that city this year, and the Department would retain the full discretion to shift its funding based on that. What this amendments says is, look, the Urban Area Security Initiative is the one homeland security program specifically designed to assist the cities that need help the most, the ones that are at the highest threat for terrorist attack. Yet last night, some of us said we should take other funds for homeland security and concentrate them more. This body decided otherwise. We have certain money guaranteed for every State. But this vote says this pot of money goes only to the cities where the threat is highest, which makes sense. But if the threat is highest, in how many cities can the threat be highest? Seven, 30, 80, 200? It makes the designation of the threat being highest meaningless. Once you have gotten to distributing the money so widely, then nobody gets very much money. Two years ago, in fiscal 2003, New York City received $150 million from this pot of money. No one thinks the threat has diminished from New York City, and yet this year it received $47 million, a cut of 69 percent. The national capital region's share, the cut was 52 percent. What we are saying is from this pot of money which is directed, intended for highest-threat areas, keep it for the highest-threat areas. It is almost meaningless when you say the 80 highest-threat areas. It probably should be the 10 or 12, but certainly no more than 80. Why 80? Because that is what they have diluted it to now. We probably should restrict it further. But to say that the pot of money that goes to the highest-threat areas should go to the 80 highest-threat areas, no more. Whichever the Department decides are the highest-threat areas, that discretion remains, is simply a statement of saying this pot of money really is for high-threat areas, not generally to be distributed. If we are serious again about protecting our people, we should have some money that is directed at the highest-threat areas based on however we decide the Department decides the highest threat is by whatever the intelligence is. That is what this pot of money is intended to do. To dilute it past 80 different entities makes it meaningless. Therefore, I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Millender-McDonald/Ferguson/ Pascrell/Nadler amendment to increase funding for port security. This amendment will transfer $275 million from the Disaster Relief Program to the Port Security Grant Program, which will then provide a total of $400 million for our Nation's seaports. Of course, I support increasing funding by much more than this $400 million, but this amendment is an extremely modest approach to begin doing something feasible right now to protect our Nation, and I firmly support the amendment. The Coast Guard has said the amount in this amendment is the absolute minimum that is needed. Remember, we are at war. It is time to begin acting like it. We all know an attack can come at any time, and we must do all that we can do to stop it. That means investing more money in port security. Frankly, this is a drop in the ocean. The fact is 2 percent of the containers of the 6 million containers that come into our ports every year are inspected; 98 percent could have an atomic bomb in them, or radiological bomb, or anything else, and we do not know about it. The fact is we should insist, and this amendment does not do it but it is a step in the right direction, and an amendment to do the right thing would be ruled out of order, the right thing would be to insist that no container gets put on a ship bound for the United States in a foreign port until that container is inspected by an American team in the foreign port. It is a little late to be discovering in New York or Los Angeles that there is a nuclear weapon in a container. And if a foreign country does not want an American team in their port, that is fine, they are sovereign, but they do not ship anything to the United States. That ought to be our policy. We ought to spend the several billion dollars a year. If we are serious about protecting our people, we ought to spend the several billion dollars a year to inspect every container before it is put on a ship in a foreign port. We are at war, and this is serious business. Last year on this floor I engaged in a colloquy on this subject, and a distinguished gentleman on the other side of the aisle said well, we will inspect the high-risk containers. And I said, so, well, the terrorists will put the weapons in the low-risk containers.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am aware of that. And I am aware that if I offered an amendment to do what we ought to do, it would be ruled out of order, as it was last year, so I am using this opportunity to talk about this amendment, to talk about what we really ought to do, which the majority would rule out of order if we attempted to do it. So the fact is what we really ought to do is inspect every container in a foreign port. We cannot do that because the administration does not take the war being waged against us seriously enough. They think the tax cuts are more important for the American people. They will not let us spend that money; the majority will not let us spend that kind of money, so we are reduced to doing what we are talking about in this amendment, which is a very modest step to increase to $400 million the total for port security because maybe we will catch in our ports here what we elect to put in containers abroad because we did not inspect them when they should be inspected. So I support the Millender-McDonald amendment as a very modest first step. The vote on this amendment will tell whether the Members voting take the security of the American people seriously or not. I urge Members to take the security of the American people seriously and vote for this amendment as a very modest first step.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this debate seems to be occurring almost in a vacuum, because it seems to ignore the fact that we are at war. There was a very serious war launched upon us by the Jihadists, the Islamists, whenever you want to call them. They want to kill as many Americans as possible. Where you get the biggest bang for the buck is in an urban area, because you can kill a lot of people in a small area. If a plane crashes on a farm, maybe you kill a person or two, but not too many more. We are not responding properly. We are not taking it seriously enough. We ought to be spending billions and billions of dollars to properly protect all of the threatened areas of this country, all of our cities, all of our nuclear power plants, all of our chemical plants. We ought to do a threat assessment on the whole country. We ought to repeal some of the tax cuts and spend the money to defend ourselves and take it as seriously as we did in 1942, but we are not doing that. And since we are not doing that, we have to prioritize the money that we do have, the grossly inadequate amounts of money; maybe more than last year, but the grossly inadequate amounts of money to protect ourselves against our enemies. We have to prioritize them where the real threats are. There should not be a grant on the basis of population. In 1942, when Admiral Nimitz had to decide where to send the fleet, he did not look at where the population was on the West Coast or in Midway or in Hawaii; he said, where is the Japanese fleet likely to attack, and that is where you spend the money and send the aircraft carriers. We are probably going to be attacked again. Thousands of people may die, and our job is with the money that is made available to spend it in the way most likely to minimize the casualties in this country. That is what this amendment seeks to do. Is it fair? No, it is not fair. It would be fair if we spent a few billion dollars more to defend our people. That would be more fair. But we do not have that money. It is a different debate. We should spend the money based on the threat, and the threat we know, as the gentleman from Illinois said before, we know where the enemy, where Osama bin Laden and his friends and confederates, we know what they are looking at. They are looking at our major urban areas. They are looking at the Space Needle in Seattle, the Sears Tower in Chicago and so forth. Yes, the bill that the committee propounded in some respects is better than the inadequate proposal that the President made, and I commend the committee for it; but this amendment makes it better yet. The fact of the matter is, we passed a tax bill earlier today that gives great breaks for tobacco farmers. It has a tobacco buyout in it. I did not hear anybody from New York saying, my God, we should not do that. Nobody in New York benefits. Nobody in New York benefits from the wheat subsidy. We do not complain about that because we do not have any wheat farmers in New York. We should not benefit from the wheat subsidy. The money that is appropriated by this Congress ought to go where the need is for the purpose for which it is appropriated. The money that is appropriated to defend us in a war ought to go where it is going to be maximally efficient in its use in protecting Americans from enemy attack. That is what this amendment does. That is why it ought to be adopted. Everything else is irrelevant.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Slaughter-Shays-Dicks amendment to increase the amount of funding in this bill for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. In fact, I support the amount that President Bush requested for these agencies. President Bush requested an $18 million increase for the NEA and a $23 million increase for the NEH. In truth, I would be even happier to support President Reagan's budget for these critical agencies, which was substantially larger. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in this Congress do not seem to think that Presidents Bush and Reagan were right in this respect. Instead, they continue to insist on flat funding for the NEA and only a tiny increase for the NEH, but the fact is flat-level funding is really a cut in the budget. It means that the resources that the NEA needs to do its job gets stretched thinner and thinner every year. We have a chance today to take a small step in rectifying this shortsightedness today. Whether it is the educational value, the cultural enrichment, or the substantial economic windfalls that the arts and humanities create, the NEA and the NEH are two of the best investments this Nation makes and two of the most productive parts of our budget, although two of the smallest parts of our budget. When we shortchange the NEA, we deprive our young people of arts education programs that help them develop critical thinking skills and train them to be the next generation of artists, and we deprive our communities of a $134 billion business that generates almost 5 million jobs, $89 billion in household income, and tens of billions of dollars in tax revenues. When we shortchange these agencies, we deprive ourselves of orchestras, nonprofit theaters, dance companies, opera companies, and touring groups that bring the benefit of the arts and culture to smaller communities throughout our country. We deprive ourselves of the important work of interpreting and preserving our Nation's heritage. For just a fraction of 1 percent of our Federal budget, the NEA and the NEH yield dividends that far outweigh the investment, but the majority leadership has chosen to ignore all of this. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very modest attempt to increase the NEA budget by just $10 million, not even the $18 million suggested by President Bush. It is an attempt to begin undoing the damage that this Congress has done to these agencies in the last 10 years. I urge my colleagues to support this extremely modest amendment, and I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for offering this amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we are asked today to consider the most serious question likely to come before the Congress: how to maintain our government as a democratic representative government in the event of a catastrophic terrorist attack. We must think carefully about the unthinkable, and we must do it now while we have the opportunity to do so. Unfortunately, this proposed amendment is being brought up by the Republican leadership under a closed rule, with 90 minutes of debate, no hearing in the Committee on the Judiciary or in any committee of this Congress. An alternative proposed by a Republican colleague from California cannot even be debated under this rule. As the ranking Democratic member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the subcommittee with the responsibility to consider all proposed constitutional amendments, I can tell my colleagues that this proposed amendment has never been the subject of a hearing in this Congress. Let me read what the Republican report on this bill says: ``No hearings were held on H.J. Res. 83,'' period. We have found the time for five hearings on same-sex marriage, and we have found the time to consider a bill to declare the oak tree the official tree of the United States. We have found time for hearings on flag burning but not on how to prevent the destruction of our democratic institutions. We have found the time to consider a balanced budget constitutional amendment, but no time to consider how to maintain the voice of the American people in the consideration of taxing and spending measures. These are the twisted priorities of this Republican leadership. How do we protect our democracy in the event of a terrorist attack? Who knows. I would like to know how we can protect our democracy right now. Clearly an issue that is of the highest importance to the Nation, an issue that should be nonpartisan is being handled in a partisan manner. That is anti-democratic. Is this amendment the right solution to a significant problem? Perhaps. Frankly, I think it goes in the right direction. I have some amendments to it that I would make, if they were in order, if we had time to consider it. We ought to hold hearings. This House passed a bill to guarantee elections in 45 days. Frankly, I think that 45 days is too quickly. What do you do as a practical matter, especially after a catastrophe, what do you do within those 45 days? I think that the best amendment would probably be something that would be along the lines of this amendment that we are considering now, but I think there ought to be a mandate that there be a special election within a reasonable time period, not 45 days, but maybe 120, 180 days. What is practical? I think there are other things. But the fact is how do you determine when someone is incapacitated and when he is no longer incapacitated? We ought to have serious hearings. We ought to consider this properly. We ought to consider the gentleman from California's (Mr. Rohrabacher) suggestions, my suggestions, other people's suggestions. We ought to consider the suggestions of law professors. We ought to do this right. This is a serious matter. Instead, what we have done is take up the chairman's bill. Why? Because he is the chairman. We do not consider anything else. We know that many people think that that is not an adequate bill, but they did not have proper hearings either. Now because of criticism, we are taking up this bill with no amendments and no other considerations. Frankly, the trouble that Members are having answering these questions is because the Republican leadership will not allow the proper minimal consideration of this issue. That is no way to protect our democracy in these dangerous times. I would urge that this bill should be sent back to the Committee on the Judiciary. I will vote for it because it is the best thing we have in front of us. We ought not to be in the position we are in.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great sadness to mourn the loss of award-winning actor and passionate social activist Tony Randall who passed away Monday night, May 17th. Though most remembered for his comedic role as Felix Unger in the T.V. series ``The Odd Couple,'' Mr. Randall was a truly versatile performer with a career on stage and screen spanning over sixty years. After serving four years in the army during World War II, where he rose to the rank of Lieutenant, Mr. Randall made many radio and theater appearances, garnering numerous accolades from critics. By the early 1950s, Mr. Randall made the shift to television, with his Emmy- nominated role of schoolteacher Harvey Weskit in ``Mr. Peepers.'' Soon after, he added movies to his resume, with principal roles in films like the Doris Day-Rock Hudson comedy ``Pillow Talk,'' earning the title from Life magazine of ``the finest . . . comedian the movies have found in decades.'' He crowned his career with his Emmy-award winning role as the worrywart Felix Unger in the Odd Couple, a role that brought him a legion of fans. However, Tony Randall will be remembered as more than just an actor. He was also a devoted social activist who for 30 years held the position of National Chairman of the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation, an organization dedicated to finding a cure for the terrible neuromuscular disease, Myasthenia. Whether it was his vociferous anti-smoking lobbying, his anti-Apartheid campaign, or his attempt to save the old Metropolitan Opera house, Mr. Randall worked with passion and zeal. Mr. Randall brought this same passion to the National Actors Theater, which he founded in 1991, dedicated to bringing classic works to the public for reasonable prices. His tireless devotion to his craft and to social justice should be an example to us all. I would like to extend my deepest condolences to Mr. Randall's wife and two children. For years he has touched millions of Americans. He will be sorely missed.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Debra Brown Steinberg on the occasion of her 50th birthday. Ms. Steinberg, a Lead Attorney for 9/11 families and victims, gave of herself for 2\1/2\ years to help those in need. She worked tirelessly to ensure that 9/11 victims and their families received good legal advice and representation, and provided compassion and human understanding. Ms. Steinberg is a partner at the New York offices of Cadwalader, Wickersham and Taft located near the site of the World Trade Center. After the attacks, while many New Yorkers became extensions of their television sets and wrote checks to charities, Ms. Steinberg quickly understood how she could best help those whose lives were devastated by this horrific attack. It was clear to her that there would be a need for pro bono legal assistance, especially for the survivors and families of low-income workers whose problems would include immigration, housing, finance, language, education and job training. The challenges to these families, many of whom were neither citizens nor legal aliens, were overwhelming. Ms. Steinberg responded by organizing and training lawyers and law students, working with nonprofit organizations and unions to learn the challenges and suggest solutions, meeting with elected officials and government agencies to explore ways to overcome bureaucratic obstacles. Moreover, she shared her knowledge and motivated others to volunteer their time and expertise. Ms. Steinberg has earned the respect, admiration and affection of colleagues, friends and those she shepherded through these most difficult times. Her efforts have inspired those around her and enabled the partners and families of those killed on September 11 to begin to plan for their futures. All of us in New York, as well as all Americans, have a special place in our hearts for people whose selfless acts make this a better world. Debra Steinberg is one of those very special people and I am proud to know her. For her commitment to her community, her State, and this Country, it is my privilege to wish Ms. Steinberg a very happy 50th birthday.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my constituent, Itche Goldberg on the occasion of his 100th birthday. Itche is at once a leader, scholar and educator, yet he still remains a student. It is rare to encounter a man who has achieved as much as Itche has, but that is not what truly makes Itche unique. What sets Itche apart from those few who can match his accomplishments is his continued passion to learn, explore and delve further into the subjects he studies. The greatest beneficiary of Itche's work has never been Itche himself, but rather those who have had the pleasure of reading his works and the work he has translated and for the important role he has played in preserving the Yiddish language. Itche began his path of scholarship in Canada, where he studied philosophy, political economics and German. At the age of twenty, he was already teaching in the Toronto Workmen Circle Folkshul, the first step onto a path of instruction that extended to Philadelphia and New York as well. His lectures have been in both Yiddish and English, covering Jewish culture and literature. From 1970 to 1985, Itche was professor of Yiddish language and literature at Queens College of the City University of New York. From 1936 to 1951, Itche edited Yungvarg, a Yiddish children's magazine, and others for both parents and teachers. During that time, he wrote many children's stories in Yiddish. Also among Itche's work are numerous Yiddish textbooks he authored, and even more he edited. As Director of the Service Bureau for Jewish Education and the Zhitlowsky Foundation, Itche's mission was to make sure these books were not only produced, but also provided to their target audiences in Jewish secular schools. Itche was also recently awarded the prestigious Raoul Wallenberg medal. Today, Itche goes to the office every day to ensure that the journal he is editor-in-chief of, Yiddishe Kultur, sees continued life. Even after forty years on the job, he remains tirelessly devoted to the endurance of one of the few surviving quality journals published in Yiddish language worldwide. In a society such as ours, which values hard work, education and culture, Itche Goldberg is priceless. A child wishing to study Yiddish culture can turn to Itche's work at every stage of life; whether it is his children's stories, textbooks, journals or upcoming second volume of essays. Itche is an asset to us all, and I feel privileged to honor him for his profound contributions towards the preservation of Yiddish, and for doing so with such an inspiring passion. Mir shatsn op ayer vunderlekhe arbet l'toyves der yidisher kultur vos hot baraikhert dem gontsn Yidishn yishev. (English Translation ``We honor your wonderful work for the benefit of Yiddish culture which enriches all of Yiddish heritage.'')

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Valery (Lawrence) Weinberg, President, Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of Novoye Russkoye Slovo. On May 8th Mr. Weinberg will be celebrating 40 years of service at Novoye Russkle Slovo (New Russian Word). Novoye Russkoye Slovo is the oldest and most widely read Russian-language daily newspaper in the United States. Born in the Ukraine in 1945, Mr. Weinberg emigrated first to Poland, and then to the United States in 1964--the same year he began his career at Novoye Russkoye Slovo. From 1964-1982 he held numerous positions at the paper. He was named Executive Vice President in 1982 and President in 1986. In 1995, Mr. Weinberg founded and became President of People's Wave Radio (WYDM 1380-AM), the only 24-hour, seven-day-a-week Russian-Language radio station in the world. Under Mr. Weinberg's leadership, Novoye Russkoye Slovo played an important role in bringing democracy to the Soviet Union by supporting Russian dissidents and publishing their work. Former presidents from both political parties, including President Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, have acknowledged Novoye Russkoye Slovo anniversaries and noted the newspaper's part in helping new immigrants adapt to life in the United States and understand U.S. policy and democracy. After the collapse of communism, the Russian government honored Mr. Weinberg for his and the paper's support of freedom and democracy. In 2000, he received an award from former President Boris Yeltsin celebrating the paper's 90th anniversary. In 2003 he was honored at an event in Moscow for his efforts to preserve Russian culture in the United States. Mr. Weinberg is also a well-known philanthropist in the Russian- American community. He is the founder and President of the UJA- Federation Russian Division, which raises funds for economically disadvantaged Russian Jews worldwide. With his wife Lilly, Mr. Weinberg helped raise funds to build several projects in Israel, including a school for disabled children. In addition to his work the UJA, Mr. Weinberg is President of the Fund for the Neediest Russian Immigrants. The fund was instrumental in building an emergency room and hospital in Israel, and was active in providing assistance to Russian-American victims of September 11th. Finally, Mr. Weinberg also serves as President of Litfundt, which provides assistance for Russian-American artists and writers. I am pleased to stand here today to congratulate Mr. Weinberg for his 40 years of service to the Russian-American community and thank him for his commitment to freedom and democracy. He is a man of integrity and drive, and I wish him all the best now and in the future.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the President, as you can see from the poster, said at his press conference last week that he was not aware of any mistakes that he had made. Let me tell my colleagues and him a few mistakes he has made, three major mistakes: First, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Bush administration chose deliberately to mislead the people of New York about the safety of the air and the environment in the aftermath of that disaster. We now know from the Inspector General of EPA's report that the White House instructed the EPA to mislead the people of New York. The former administrator of EPA, Mrs. Whitman, said 2 days after the disaster the air is safe to breathe, when they had no test data to show that. Because of that misleading, Federal, State, and city government followed policies that have resulted in catastrophe. We now know from recent medical reports that an absolute majority, most of the first responders, the heroes, the fire officers, the police officers, the construction workers who descended on Lower Manhattan to help with the rescue operations, most of them now, 2\1/2\ years later, have serious respiratory disorders which will probably plague them for the rest of their lives. We know that women who live within a mile, 1.6 kilometers, of the World Trade Center, today are giving birth to low birth weight babies at twice the natural rate because the White House chose to mislead the American people. Second, the White House chose to get us into a useless, stupid war in Iraq to divert our attention from the war against us by the Islamic terrorists. We know that there were no weapons of mass destruction, contrary to what they told us in Iraq, no great stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. We know the Iraqi people did not, as the White House told us they would, greet our troops as liberators. We know that when the President stood there before the sign and said mission accomplished and said that major combat was over, he was wrong. We know this administration did not plan adequately for an occupation. We know they sent too few troops there to properly secure the country. We know they fired General Shinseki because he had the impudence to say the truth in advance. We know that they disbanded the Iraqi army without having enough troop strength to replace it and they are now trying to reassemble it. We know, in short, they got us into a quagmire and so thoroughly alienated the rest of the world by the arrogant attitude of this administration that we cannot get any significant help, we cannot internationalize the conflict, we cannot share the burdens or at least we cannot do these things as long as George Bush is President because no one trusts him abroad anymore. But perhaps the greatest mistake that this administration has made is that this administration has not and does not take seriously enough the terrorist war being waged against us by the Islamic terrorists. From before 9/11, when this administration ignored many warnings, to this very day, they refuse to spend the money necessary to protect the American people. Two months after 9/11, leaders in Congress proposed to spend $10 billion to protect our chemical and nuclear facilities and our transportation terminals against attacks that could kill or wound hundreds of thousands of people. President Bush said he would veto such an appropriation. It was not done. This administration refuses to spend the money to buy the weapons grade plutonium and uranium now in the former Soviet Union that can easily be smuggled to al Qaeda to make atomic bombs because they care more about tax cuts for the wealthy than about protecting the American people. It is a mistake not to prevent al Qaeda from going nuclear by buying that plutonium and uranium quickly. This administration inspects only 2 percent of the 6 million shipping containers that come into this country every year, any one of which could hide a chemical or biological or nuclear weapon. It is a mistake not to insist that no container is placed on a ship bound for the United States until that container is inspected and certified and sealed by an American inspection team in the foreign port. This administration will not spend the funds to protect our commercial aviation. It is a mistake not to place a missile deflection system on every commercial airliner as the Israelis are doing by this summer so that we do not have to worry about our airlines being shot out of the sky by shoulder-fired missiles. In short, it is a mistake not to place the priority where it belongs, on protecting the American people from terrorism instead of protecting tax cuts for the wealthy. Mr. Speaker, if the President wants to know about some mistakes, here are some mistakes. Here are some mistakes that he can correct if he is willing to protect the American people at the cost of the tax cuts for the wealthy. His major mistake is his priority. Tax cuts for the wealthy, yes. Protect the American people from terrorism, no. That is some mistake.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Isakson amendment, which would include high-priority projects as well as projects of national regional Significance within the minimum guarantee program. Supporters of the amendment claim that by including these projects, which are really Member earmarks, in the minimum guarantee program, funding to States' core programs will be increased. The amendment, however, will actually hurt many States' core programs because Member projects are earmarked and thus not available for States to use on their existing capital plans. Under the existing legislation, California, for example, without the amendment will get its apportioned funds for use in its existing core programs plus the $1 billion it currently has in earmarks. Therefore, it makes no sense for Californians, for example, to vote for this amendment. The amendment is also dangerous because to include projects of national significance in the minimum guarantee is to negate the entire program of projects for national significance. This category was established to fund projects that have a national significance and impact and that require a significant amount of funding. Eligible projects must be at least $500 million or 75 percent of the State's entire annual highway apportionment. If a project this size were counted against a State's allocation, the State would have virtually no money for its regular core program or existing capital plan. As a practical matter, no State would seek funding under this program. The purpose of the program is to fund projects of national significance that normally would not get funded because of their multi- State nature or their size. These projects may be necessary because of our national trade policy or to improve national security. It makes no sense to count these projects against a State's formula allocation. The reality, of course, is that this amendment is offered because its supporters are upset about the minimum guarantee, that it does not rise from 90.5 percent immediately. This amendment will do nothing to address that concern and will in fact punish many States in the process. I disagree with that position. I believe the minimum guarantee should stay where it is. But if they are upset that funds are allocated 90.5 percent, why would they want to put more programs under this formula? Why not allow all States to receive funds in addition to those allocated by formula? Including projects of national significance in the minimum guarantee certainly does not help them as it has nothing to do with the donor/donee issue. Under this amendment, neither the country as a whole nor any State would be able to benefit from this program, and the whole initiative which is of national significance would be rendered useless. The money would go to waste. This amendment undercuts much of the progress made in the underlying TEA LU bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, my own State of New York is one of the most active car rental markets in the country. We also have a huge number of uninsured drivers who rent cars because, in New York City, a lot of people do not own cars. New York has forbidden car rental companies to ask their customers if they own automobile insurance in order to allow the largest number of people access to rent the cars. Since New York has made the policy decision to mandate car rental companies to rent to uninsured drivers, New York needs vicarious liability to protect innocent bystanders who are injured by these uninsured drivers. Why should not New York and other States have the ability to make that policy determination? Why should we arrogate to ourselves to tell the 15 States that have chosen to have vicarious liability but not to limit car rentals to only people who can prove that they have their own personal insurance, that is the trade-off; why should we tell them that is the wrong policy decision? That should be left to the States. There is nothing wrong with a State deciding that it is in the interests of the people of that State for uninsured drivers, who may be uninsured because they do not own their own cars, to be able to rent cars, but to be able to say to the car rental companies, you must take vicarious liability so that you do not shift the burden of paying for an accident to the pedestrian or the hospital or the taxpayers. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Fifteen States have chosen to do it. To pass this amendment is to say that we are going to obviate the policy choices that those States have made and shift the burden on to innocent victims of accidents in those States. We should not do it. Let the States decide this question, as they have. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I would rather be standing here today supporting a $375 billion transportation bill. $375 billion is what the U.S. Department of Transportation has said is necessary to meet our most basic infrastructure needs over the next 6 years. Unfortunately, the President insists that we not fund our transportation system adequately and that we not fund the hundreds of thousands of jobs that such a bill would create, but we must do what we can, and despite the funding constraints, there are many things to be proud of in the bill before us. The committee has done a remarkable job of preserving many of the important new initiatives in TEA LU, such as safe routes to school, freight intermodal connectors and, in particular, projects of national and regional significance. At the same time, we have maintained our core highway and transit programs and increased funding for critical initiatives such as senior transportation services and the ferry boat discretionary program. This legislation maintains the minimum guarantee funding formula established in TEA 21, but it contains a provision that essentially cuts off highway funding in fiscal year 2006 unless a law is passed in the interim raising the minimum guarantee to 95 percent, while guaranteeing States that they would receive no less than subsequent years, plus the cost of inflation. I understand the frustration expressed on this floor by the so-called ``donor'' States. New York, as a whole, is a donor State. We send about $18 to $20 billion more to the Federal Government every year than we receive in total Federal spending. Transportation is one of the few areas in which this is not the case. New York has invested huge amounts of money in mass transit. Therefore, we are more energy efficient than the country as a whole. We buy less gasoline, and we pay fewer gas taxes into the Highway Trust Fund, and apparently, because we are more efficient, because we are saving the country on sending money to the Middle East, we must be punished by getting less highway funds. That is the idea of the 95 percent guarantee. Yet, New York has a lot of transportation needs with older, aging infrastructure, and one out of every three transit riders in the country, which is capped at 15 percent. It is just not right to punish States for being energy efficient, and, therefore, I am generally opposed to this provision, but it does not do it right away. It puts off a final decision for 2 years. Because of the many good features in the bill, I urge its enactment.