Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I was very much pleased to participate along with my wife on this trip to Israel, and I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) in organizing this trip. It is not my first trip. It is probably my 7th or 8th trip to Israel. And as always, I was impressed by looking at different facets of Israeli society and seeing a vibrant, free, democratic, modern country, so different from so many other countries in the Middle East. I had many experiences there, but one of the things I always do when I go someplace else is read the local newspapers. Reading the newspapers in Israel, you are struck by the debates on politics and on policy, on peace, you are struck on the political give and take, by the criticism in the newspapers of the government and its leaders, by the debate of the members of the various political parties, all of this so reminiscent of the democracy in our own country, in the United States. In the debates in the press, in talking to the people, one could feel the palpable yearning for peace that Israel is so desperate for. One could not escape the fact that Israel is a country fighting a war on terrorism alongside the United States. One could never escape the fact that Israel is targeted by hostile neighbors, by hostile terrorists who have had over 100 suicide bombings, homicide bombings, really, targeted at civilians, men, women and children. Sometimes we read in the papers here that in the last 3 years since violence began in September of 2000, about 800 Israelis have been killed and countless more wounded, maimed. And Palestinians were also killed. But what you do not read all the time is that most of the Israelis who were killed and maimed were children and old people and women, children simply at a pizza parlor or teenagers at a dance hall or people at a wedding or a Bar Mitzvah or just going about their business, on their way to work on a bus. Most of the Palestinians who were killed were armed people engaged in attacking someone engaged in terrorism. One is also struck when visiting Israel, in going around Israel, by how small the country actually is. It is one thing to look at a map and talk about Israel and the territories, the West Bank and Gaza and the Sinai and Egypt and what territories should constitute a new Palestinian state, what territorial concessions or compromises Israel should make. It is all very academic on a piece of paper; until you are there, and you see how small this country is. When you go to a place, a hill on a farm, and you can look and see on one side, the Jordan River, the boundary between the West Bank and Jordan, and on the other side, you can see from the same hill the Mediterranean, how narrow the country is and how remarkable, in those terms, is the willingness of Israel to give up so much territory to form an independent Palestinian state, as Israel offered to do at Camp David and at Taba in 2000. We saw the monitoring station in the north of the country. We visited a station, really a couple of trailers, a few hundred feet from the Lebanese border. We saw the balloon. It looked like a barrage balloon, tethered a couple of hundred feet up, but it did not hold weapons. It held cameras. And sitting in this monitoring station were young girls, 18-year-old girls in army uniforms looking at the monitors to try to prevent terrorists from coming over the border to attack and killing at random, to kill men, women and children at random. And this is what the army has to occupy itself with. We saw also part of where the fence is going to be. The fence has been the object of some controversy. But the Gaza Strip has a fence around it. People go through the fence, through check points, but not one homicide bomber has come from Gaza. A million and a half people in Gaza, not one homicide bombing has come from Gaza into Israel successfully. Plenty have tried, but not one has succeeded to wreak mayhem and murder on civilians. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the West Bank. Someone once said that good fences make good neighbors. Well, you need a lot more than good fences to make good neighbors, but one might say that good fences are very important to make good neighbors. And no one can deny the necessity for Israel to try to prevent people from crossing over to attack villages and towns in Kibbutzim and just plain people going about their business. The United States is erecting a fence between at various places between the United States and Mexico to prevent illegal immigration. No, we do not have a problem, thank God, with people trying to cross from Mexico into San Diego to commit murder. If we have a problem, it is because people want to cross to get jobs. But the Israelis have that problem. And we saw where we were how narrow the place was. How there was an Israeli town and not 200 yards away an Arab-Palestinian village, which was not in Israel but was in the West Bank, and in between them simply a depression in the ground and nothing to stop people from walking across. That is why we need the fence. That is why Israel needs the fence, to protect the lives of men, women and children. And it ill-behooves anyone to criticize a defensive fence against terrorism. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe in the necessity of a Palestinian state. Some people ask me, do I believe that the Palestinians have a right to a state? My answer is no, I do not think so. I do not see why the Palestinians have any more right to an independent state than the Baaths or the Kurds. On the other hand, if Israel is going to be a safe state and is going to achieve peace and is going to remain a Jewish democratic state, then there has to be a Palestinian state, because there is no alternative. The question, of course, is, can you have a Palestinian state with peace and security for Israel? Is there someone you can deal with to negotiate that, and that is what Israel tried to do. And if you read what Dennis Ross, President Clinton's chief negotiator at Camp David, or what some of the others have said, they offered, the Israelis offered a Palestinian state in 100 percent of Gaza, 97 percent of the West Bank, plus territory from Israel proper so that the Palestinians could say they got the equivalent of acreage of 100 percent and Arafat turned it down. And Arafat then started a war which is what we have had for the last almost 3 years, 3 years and a couple of weeks. So we hope and pray for peace. This trip showed us just how small Israel is; how necessary the fence is, how necessary the Israeli defense measures are; how important Israel's part in the war on terrorism is; and how, when people say that the main problem is the Israeli occupation, how wrong that is. The Israeli occupation will end when there is an ability to have a peaceful solution for Israel and to have security for Israel without Israel having to occupy the land for security purposes. We saw that very clearly and that is what we have to understand. And the United States must engage to continue our alliance with Israel, the only free democratic people in the area, the only reliable ally for the United States in the area, and the moral necessity of defending that freedom and democracy, and the political necessity of allying in the war on terrorism with our only reliable ally in the war on terrorism in the Middle East, Israel.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have heard repeatedly, including from the last speaker, that so-called partial-birth abortion is never a necessary procedure to save the life and health of the mother, but fact is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and I am reading now from the committee report, minority views, ``the leading professional association of physicians who specialize in the health care of women, has concluded that the D & X'' procedure, which is one procedure described by partial-birth abortion, ``is a safe procedure and may be the safest option for some women. ACOG has explained that intact D & E, including D & X, is a minor, and often safer, variant of the `traditional' nonintact D & E. ACOG has also stated that D & X `may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman. Only the physician, in consultation with the patient and based on her circumstances, can make this decision.' '' That is why relying on this kind of medical evidence, ``the Supreme Court concluded in Stenberg that `significant medical authority supports the proposition that in some circumstances D & X would be the safest procedure.' Indeed, the Court concluded that `a statute that altogether forbids D & X creates a significant health risk.' '' So much for the so-called findings in this bill, the Supreme Court has already thrown them in the trash basket. That is why, in addition to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, numerous other medical groups have publicly opposed attempts by Congress to pass this legislation, and among those which have labeled this legislation as injurious to women's health, and therefore they oppose it, are the American Public Health Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Medical Women's Association, the California Medical Association, the American College of Nurse Practitioners, the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, the Association of Schools of Public Health, the National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Reproductive Health. And, finally, ``contrary to the claims of the sponsors of'' this bill, ``the American Medical Association does not support any criminal abortion ban legislation.'' So, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has already said, in so many words, that any legislation that altogether forbids some of the kinds of procedures that would be described by this legislation creates a significant health risk for women, and, therefore, is unconstitutional. Mr. Speaker, I said a moment ago that the arguments that this is never a medically necessary procedure are refuted by all the different medical groups that I named and by the specific findings of the Supreme Court in the Stenberg case. And all the nonsense about findings by Congress will not avail to make this bill constitutional against the finding by the Supreme Court. This is a Supreme Court that does not care that much about findings by Congress anyway, and that has said, in so many words, that a statute that altogether forbids D & X, one of the procedures that clearly would be outlawed by this bill, creates a significant health risk and an unconstitutional health risk. So this bill is clearly unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because it does not give people a right to do what the physician and the patient regard as the safest procedure to save the health and life of the mother, which the Supreme Court says they must do. But beyond that, this is clearly an assault on Roe v. Wade, whatever else anybody may say. If it is not an assault on Roe, if it is not deliberately an assault, getting the nose under the camel's tent to try to ban all abortions, to try to say that women should not have the right to make this choice, to try to say that the men and women in this Chamber have more to say about a woman's health choice than she does herself, then why did the conferees, the members of the conference, remove the nonbinding language that said this did not attack Roe v. Wade? Because they were a little more honest. The Senate was a little more honest than the people in this House are being. They recognize this for what it is, an attack on Roe v. Wade, and, frankly, the majority Members of the House also wanted to remove that language, and they were honest the day before yesterday. So, Mr. Speaker, the current Supreme Court clearly considers this unconstitutional. A future Supreme Court packed with reactionary appointees by the President might not. This puts at risk the right of women to choose. And the fundamental question here is, as it has always been, there are fundamentally different religious views about when life begins, about what is appropriate and what is not appropriate, and we are all entitled to our views, be they motivated by religion or moral fervor or whatever. What we are not entitled to do is to use the force of law to impose the religious views of some people on other people who do not agree with that and to say to a woman they must risk their life, they must risk their health because we do not think it is right for them to have an abortion. That is what this is about. That is what this is about. The right to choose is the key right here, and this bill is a direct assault on that. Therefore, we ought to oppose it. It will be a sad day when this House passes this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we have a very bad combination: Members of Congress who want to play doctor and Members of Congress who want to play Supreme Court. When we put the two together, we have a description for some very bad medicine for the women of this country. Today's vote is different from previous votes. Every Member of this House should understand that this is not a free vote. This legislation will become law unless we stop it. We cannot count on the Senate, we cannot count on the President, and remember that this President is trying to pack the Supreme Court with reactionary justices. If this bill becomes law, it will be the first time since Roe vs. Wade was decided that Congress will have acted to criminalize the constitutional right to choose. No one should think it will end here. This is only the first, not the last, bill that people who want to turn back the clock will bring forward. If my colleagues do not believe that this bill is intended as a direct assault on Roe, they should ask themselves why was a nonbinding statement supporting the right to choose pursuant to Roe and opposing efforts to overturn it dropped from the bill in the conference committee? Do not be fooled. Do not listen to what they say. Look at what they are doing. Although this bill is blatantly and facially unconstitutional, the Supreme Court's decision striking down an almost identical Nebraska statute was a close vote. This administration is determined to pack the Court with justices committed to eliminating the fundamental right to keep government out of the most personal decisions involving women's life and health. So even though this bill is blatantly unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court, one cannot count on the Supreme Court maintaining that view if the President succeeds in packing it with reactionaries, which is why this bill is before us. We will not find the term ``partial birth abortion'' in any medical textbook. The authors of this legislation prefer the language of propaganda to the language of science. For one thing, the rhetoric behind this bill is really a rhetoric aimed at late-term abortion, at fetuses that look like human beings, that are almost born; late-term fetuses, as people understand the term. The fact is, though, that if we want to ban late-term abortions, I do not think there will be many people in this Chamber who would oppose that. Forty-one States have done so against almost no opposition. The Supreme Court has said that we have the power to ban abortions after viability. Most States have done so. If the horror that is to be addressed, the alleged horror that is to be addressed is as described, just put in a bill that says no abortions after fetal viability. Very few people would oppose it. It would pass, and that would take care of the problem. But that amendment was also defeated in conference because that is not the intent here. One of the problems with this bill from a constitutional point of view is that the term is so vaguely defined that it could easily refer to various different procedures that are necessary in second trimester, not late term, but second trimester, pre-viability abortions, when there are certain health problems attendant on the pregnancy. This bill is intended to forbid that, too, and to chill doctors from performing certain techniques which may be the best from a health point of view in second trimester abortions lest they have a prosecution under this bill, even though it is not clearly defined. This bill reads as if the authors carefully studied the Supreme Court's decisions and then went out of their way to thumb their noses at 30 years of clear law. Unless the authors think that when the Court has made repeated and clear statements over 30 years of what the Constitution requires that the Court was just pulling our leg, this bill must be considered facially unconstitutional. Outrageously, both from a substantive point of view and a constitutional point of view, there is no health exception. A partial birth abortion as defined would be prohibited even where necessary to preserve the health of the mother. That is just outrageous on its face. But, in addition to this, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that we must have a health exception in a bill even with respect to post- viability abortions if that bill is going to be constitutional. We cannot prohibit abortions or abortion procedures necessary to save the life or health of the mother. The exception for a woman's life in this bill is so narrow that it violates the Constitution and will place doctors in the position of trying to guess just how grave a danger to her life a pregnancy must pose to a woman before they can be confident that protecting her will not result in jail time. I know that some of my colleagues do not like the clear requirements of the Constitution, but that is the law of the land, and no amount of rhetoric will change that. The drafters of this bill, as the distinguished chairman said a few minutes ago, say that the findings included in the bill, the findings that so-called partial birth abortions are never medically necessary, that these findings get around the constitutional requirement as established by the Supreme Court, that a medical procedure necessary to preserve the life or health of a woman cannot be denied. But Congress is not a doctor, and certainly Congress is not the doctor in a particular procedure performed on a particular woman. Only her doctor, who knows her medical condition, can decide what is medically necessary. The Supreme Court has made clear that it is not interested in Congress' findings of fact, despite what the distinguished chairman said. Boerne and other cases, though they pay lip service to Congress' findings of fact, toss them out routinely. The Supreme Court will not ignore the significant body of medical opinion contradicting what the sponsors of the bill say. Many supporters of this bill think all abortion is infanticide. They are entitled to their view, but it is not the mainstream view. This bill would foist this fringe belief on American women. This bill would criminalize abortions in the second trimester and turn doctors treating women with dangerously deformed fetuses, those that can never be born alive, into criminals. We could prohibit post-viability abortions in situations in which a woman's life and health is not in jeopardy, but this bill does not do that. That is where the abortion itself would not put the woman's life or health in jeopardy. But that is not what this bill does. Forty-one States, as I said already, ban post-viability abortions. Almost nobody would oppose that bill. But that is not this bill. Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, and one of the most radical opponents of a woman's right to choose, has called this bill a political scam and a public relations gold mine. He is right. The real purpose of this bill is not as we have been told, to save babies, but to save elections. Unfortunately, today, women's health takes a back seat to politics and political extremism. Hopefully, the Constitution still serves as a bulwark against such efforts. Regrettably, we cannot be sure the current efforts to pack the courts will not succeed. We should all vote today as if women's lives depend on it. They do. And I hope this Chamber, this House will reject this bill, as it ought to. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to comment on some of what we just heard. Mr. Speaker, the American Medical Women's Association, an organization of 10,000 women physicians and medical students dedicated to promoting women's health and advancing women in medicine, states, ``We recognize this legislation is an attempt to ban a procedure that in some circumstances is the safest and most appropriate alternative available to save the life and health of the woman.'' The American Public Health Association with 50,000 members from over 50 public health occupations writes the same. So to say it is universally recognized that there is no medical necessity for the procedures described in this bill or perhaps described in the imprecise definition of this bill is not correct. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, it is my great personal pleasure to rise today in cognition of the Association of Theatrical Press Agents and Managers (ATPAM) for its contribution to the art of stage entertainment so immensely enjoyed by residents of New York and by audiences throughout the Nation and around the globe. This year marks the seventy-fifth anniversary of ATPAM, an organization that has maintained a prominent place in the entertainment industry since it first received its charter from the American Federation of Labor in 1928. Since its inception, ATPAM, a coalition of press agents, publicity and marketing specialists, company managers and house and facilities managers, has devoted its resources to the enrichment of stage entertainment and the health, vitality, and success of its members. ATPAM has also dedicated considerable efforts to philanthropy in its support of industry-wide charities such as the Actor's Fund of America and Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS. ATPAM was able to expand that objective even further when it decided to affiliate with IATSE and carry its good work to a broader community. Most notable are ATPAM's exemplary actions in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York. ATPAM members accepted salary cuts in order to keep Broadway going after 9/11, and mobilized members of other New York theatrical unions to follow their lead. The Association of Theatrical Press Agents & Managers has been an inspiration to the entertainment industry since its founding seventy- five years ago, and remains a tremendous force for the cultural arts of New York City and beyond. Today, I am proud to stand before Congress and join ATPAM in their celebration.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is, generally, a good bill. The distinguished chairman talked about containers being searched in Newark and Los Angeles. He said the Container Security Initiative will target high-threat cargo before it reaches U.S. shores. Mr. Speaker, it only takes one weapon of mass destruction, in one container, to destroy an American city. Mr. Speaker, this country will not be safe until every container is searched and sealed and certified by an American inspection team before it is put on a ship in a foreign port. This country will not be safe until no container can be put on that ship before it is searched and sealed by the American team in the foreign port, every container, not just the high-threat ones. The terrorists know we will inspect the high-threat containers; so they will put the bomb in the low-threat container. We cannot depend on the good guys, that we know who the good guys are who are, long-time shippers to us. How do we know that some terrorist is not an employee of a good-guy shipper? We must spend the 6 or 7 or $8 billion a year that it will take to put an American inspection team to search every container before it is sent to our shore and the additional money to electronically go around every ship 100 miles off our shore before it is allowed into American territory or waters to make sure that there is no plutonium or enriched uranium onboard that ship. We can do that scientifically. But until then we will not be safe. We are just nibbling at the edges with everything we are doing.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and I are offering, which corrects an incredible injustice faced by some victims of the 9/ 11 attacks. Shortly after the attack, which occurred in my district on September 11, Congress moved quickly to ease the economic suffering of businesses and residents in Lower Manhattan. Over $3 billion was appropriated through the Community Development Block Grant program specifically to assist residents and businesses in Lower Manhattan through a variety of grant programs to try to recover from the tremendous economic damage inflicted by the terrorists. While such programs could never make these individuals and businesses whole after the devastating losses they suffered, these funds are an important first step in, and my constituents are truly grateful to the country for coming to their aid. Incredibly, the Internal Revenue Service has announced that much of this money is subject to Federal taxation, effectively withdrawing some of the aid after it has already been given. When we appropriated these funds in this House, it was incomprehensible that the Federal Government might provide assistance with one hand and take it away with the other. These funds are not profit. They are not income that should be taxed. They are funds intended to begin to defray some of the damages incurred by these businesses which were closed for months because guards stood on Canal Street saying ``You cannot go to these businesses. You cannot pass here.'' The aid that these businesses are getting are a tiny fraction of the economic damage they suffered because of the terrorists. Twenty percent have already closed their doors. Twenty percent of the small businesses in Lower Manhattan have gone bankrupt because of the inadequacy of the aid that we gave them to make them whole from the terrorists, and now we are taking away some of the money that we gave them. Recipients of these funds were never asked to prepare a budget with the prospect of paying taxes on it in mind. Already near financial ruin, to place further economic demand on their budgets is simply cruel. This is an issue of fairness and common sense and decency to the people who took the hit for this country. I do not believe that anybody on either side of the aisle who voted for the economic aid to try to help the victims of the terrorism anticipated this taxation, and we ought to get rid of it. Point of Order

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I do. I would agree, obviously, with what the gentlewoman from New York, my coauthor of this amendment, just said. We have tried every different way. The aid to small businesses is roughly about $539 million. This tax is taking it back about $268 million. I will concede that technically the point of order may stand, but the Committee on Rules of this House routinely waives all points of order; routinely waives most points of order. I would appeal to my colleague to withdraw his point of order. I appeal to my colleague to exercise discretion and not press his point of order so as not to victimize the victims a second time. Because that is what we are talking about here. We have tried, the gentlewoman from New York and I and others in the New York delegation, to try to press this point to the Committee on Rules, in separate legislation, and to the IRS. I do not believe anybody anticipated that someone might come along and say this aid should be taxed. We would have put a sentence in the initial aid legislation 2 years ago, no one would have opposed it, and that would have been that. No one anticipated this. This was completely shocking. No one anticipated the IRS would say that this money, which was a small recompense, with the average aid being about 10 to 15 percent of the loss, there is no profit or income here, it is 10 to 15 percent of the economic loss; but no one anticipated this would be taxed, so I urge that the point of order be withdrawn

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment would increase the appropriation for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program, known as HOPWA, by $5 million. It is a far cry from what is truly needed, but it represents an important first step towards full funding. I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for cosponsoring the amendment, and I would like to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for cosponsoring the amendment and for demonstrating bipartisan support for this amendment and for this program. I have a lengthy statement, but since the distinguished chairman has indicated he is prepared to accept the amendment, I will say nothing further other than to thank him. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase the appropriation for the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS, or HOPWA, progam by $5 million. This is a far cry from what is truly needed, but it represents an important first step toward full funding. I would like to thank Mr. Shays and Mr. Crowley for joining me on this amendment and for demonstrating the bipartisan support for HOPWA. Mr. Chairman, at any given time, one-third to one-half of all Americans living with AIDS are either homeless or in imminent danger of losing their homes. Without assistance, they face almost certain death on the streets. This is where HOPWA comes in. Through a variety of services, HOPWA helps thousands of people each year put a roof over their heads and create a stable living environment for themselves. But HOPWA is not just about being compassionate, it's also good public policy. Having stable, decent housing is the key to maintaining strict treatment regimens which have allowed thousands of people with AIDS to resume normal, productive lives. HOPWA is a locally controlled program that provides communities with the flexibility to address local housing needs. It also supplies a low- cost alternative to acute-care hospital beds, typically paid for by Medicaid, which are often the only available shelter for people living with AIDS. In fact, while an acute-care facility costs Medicaid, on average more than $1,000 a day assistance under HOPWA costs just $55 to $110 a day. In Fiscal Year 2002 alone, HOPWA funds served over 60,000 people in 74 cities and 34 states across the nation. This is a well-run, far- reaching and successful program. When I meet with members of the AIDS community, there is one need that is stressed about all others, and that is housing. Finding affordable housing can be extremely difficult for anyone. Throw in the added complications of living with AIDS--paying for expensive medication, the difficulty in holding a steady job, and perhaps facing discrimination--and it becomes nearly impossible. That's why HOPWA fills such a critical void. But without sufficient funding, thousands of people will continue to be unable to access these critical services. In San Francisco alone, over 4,700 people are now on waiting lists for HOPWA-funded housing. We must do all we can to reduce this backlog. The housing crisis facing people living with HIV/AIDS exacts an enormous toll on individuals, their families, and communities across the country. HOPWA dollars help lessen this toll. Without proper funding for HOPWA, people with HIV and AIDS will continue to die prematurely in hospital rooms, shelters, and on the streets of our cities. This amendment is a small step toward what is truly necessary, but even this modest increase will mean the difference between life and death for thousands of people. I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase funding for section 8 housing vouchers by $150 million to help low-income families afford safe, decent housing. To offset this increase, the amendment cuts the working capital fund from the management and administration accounts by an equal amount. The need for housing assistance is staggering. As of January 1, the New York City Housing Authority had 142,000 applicants on its waiting list for section 8. And it gets worse. The section 8 waiting list has been closed to new applicants since December 1994, and there is still 142,000 people waiting, just in New York City. In 1999, a HUD study concluded there were nearly 5 million low-income families who paid more than 50 percent of their income for rent or lived in severely substandard housing. In the last several years, housing prices have continued to skyrocket, and with the stagnant economy and rising unemployment rates the problem is probably even worse and more severe today. We must not ignore the desperate situation facing these families any longer. I challenge anyone to argue that tenant-based section 8 vouchers do not achieve their goals. More than 2 million American families benefit from section 8 vouchers. For these families, section 8 is a lifeline and enables them to live in decent housing. Mr. Chairman, why are we planning to undermine the program in this bill by not expanding it? The fact is, as recently as a few years ago, in fiscal year 2001, we increased the number of vouchers by 79,000. In fiscal year 2002, we increased it by 18,000. Last year we increased it by zero. This budget proposes to increase it by zero. The amount of money I am proposing to put into this bill will increase a mere 23,000 new vouchers. Waiting lists are in the millions. We can afford the offset. We have already appropriated over $1 billion in the last couple of years to upgrade the computer system. We are proposing $330 million more this year. We are saying, take about half of that, less than half of that, and provide services for people. If it takes HUD a little longer to upgrade its computer system, they will live with that, so 23,000 people will have decent housing. Mr. Chairman, that is a fair trade, and that is why I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. July 25, 2003. To: Members of the House of Representatives. Re funding for the Housing Choice (``Section 8'') Voucher Program. As members of the faith community, we are writing to express our concern about funding for the Section 8 housing voucher program. Our organizations serve millions of low- income individuals and families who, despite their best efforts, are struggling to meet their basic needs and to achieve economic stability. To many of those we assist, the lack of affordable housing presents a considerable obstacle, and the Section 8 voucher program offers in turn a critical form of assistance. Through our work, we are witness to the important role that housing vouchers play in preventing homelessness, and in helping low-income individuals and families to make progress towards economic stability. Congress has for many years expressed a strong commitment to the Section 8 voucher program, consistently voting to increase the number of vouchers authorized and to fully fund all authorized vouchers. This commitment has been important, as the need for housing assistance has continued to expand. In most communities, there are long waiting lists for Section 8 vouchers, and it is estimated that only one third of eligible households receive voucher assistance. To our disappointment, however, Congress appears to be retreating from this commitment. In the appropriations law for 2003, Congress failed, for the first time in recent memory, to include funding for incremental Section 8 vouchers. This week, the House Appropriations Committee reported out a VA-HUD appropriations bill for 2004 that would, by its own estimate, fund only 96 percent of authorized Section 8 vouchers, and again includes on funding for incremental vouchers. Moreover, while we appreciate that the House Appropriations Committee has made a sincere effort to improve on the President's budget request for the voucher program, and we recognize that estimating future voucher costs is difficult, there is reason to believe that the Committee's estimate is overly optimistic. Recent analyses performed independently by the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) suggest that the Committee's estimate is based on voucher cost assumptions that are too low. For example, in an analysis of the most recent voucher cost data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, CBPP estimates that the Section 8 appropriation in the House bill would be sufficient to renew only 91 percent of authorized vouchers, and is approximately $580 million short of the funding that will be necessary to fully renew vouchers leased in 2004. A shortfall of this magnitude would have a destructive impact on thousands of vulnerable households--85,000 households, by CBPP's estimate--the great majority of which are working families, elderly, or disabled. We therefore urge you to renew Congress's commitment to fully fund the Section 8 voucher program. Specifically, we ask that you increase the Section 8 appropriation sufficiently to ensure that all authorized vouchers will be funded, and to make certain that no households using vouchers in the coming year will be denied funding. As faith-based organizations, we are committed to strengthening our communities by assisting those who are the most vulnerable, and we believe that our work is not simply a matter of charity, but of responsibility, righteousness, and justice. We urge you to assist us in our work by renewing Congress's commitment to fully fund and expand the Section 8 voucher program. Sincerely, American Baptist Churches USA. Call to Renewal. Catholic Charities USA. The Episcopal Church, USA. McAuley Institute. NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Washington Office. United Jewish Communities. Volunteers of America. Mr. Chairman, I am offering, with Congresswoman Velazquez, this amendment to increase funding for Section 8 vouchers by $150 million to help low-income families afford safe, decent housing. To offset this increase, we propose to cut the working capital fund from the management and administration account by the same amount. The need for housing assistance is staggering. As of January 1, 2003, the New York City Housing Authority had 141,837 applicants on its Section 8 waiting list. And it gets worse. The Section 8 waiting list has been closed to new applicants since December 1994. That is just in New York City. In 1999, a HUD study concluded that there were nearly 5 million low- income families who paid more than 50 percent of their income for rent or who lived in severely substandard housing. In the last several years housing prices have continued to skyrocket, and with the stagnant Bush economy and rising unemployment rates the problem is probably even more severe today. We must not ignore the desperate situation facing many families or the severity of their needs any longer. I challenge anyone to argue that tenant-based Section 8 vouchers do not achieve their goals. More than 2 million American families benefit from Section 8 vouchers. For these families, Section 8 is more than a contract or a subsidy; it is often the foundation upon which they can build lifelong economic self-sufficiency. Section 8 allows families to enter the private housing market and choose where they want to live, helping them to escape from the cycle of poverty and creating better income mixes throughout our communities. Thanks to Section 8, families are able to afford decent, safe housing. Nothing extravagant and, frankly, sometimes not very nice at all, but much better than the alternative. Research supports the benefits of Section 8 housing. Section 8 children are much less likely to be involved in violent crime, and they are more likely to stay in school and improve their educational performance. Section 8 families are more than twice as likely to leave welfare, and have success moving into the workforce. Based on these and other findings, the bipartisan, congressionally-chartered Millennial Housing Commission strongly endorsed the voucher program in its May 2002 report, describing the program as ``flexible, cost-effective, and successful in its mission.'' So why are we planning to undermine the program in this bill? The bill, in its current form, does a terrible disservice to those most in need. Unlike the previous administration which in the year 2000 requested 120,000 incremental Section 8 vouchers, the Bush Administration would prefer to block grant the program and cut its funding. Thankfully, not even the Republicans agreed to such a radical proposal. However, this bill would contribute to the growing backlog of families who can't afford decent, safe and sanitary housing. I want to quote from a letter from religious organizations throughout the country who write that ``Recent analyses performed independently by the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) suggest that the Committee's estimate is based on voucher cost assumptions that are too low. . . . CBPP estimates that the Section appropriation . . . is approximately $580 million short of the funding that will be needed to fully renew vouchers leased in 2004.'' That means that 85,000 households will be affected. Our amendment will allow about 23,500 more families to live in safe, affordable, decent housing. It is not asking for much. We can and should do more. But today, we only ask for a very modest amount. Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke eloquently in 1944 of the fact hat, and I quote: ``True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not freemen.'' FDR was right--every family deserves a decent home. President Roosevelt's commitment to provide decent, safe, affordable housing to those who could not afford the rents in the private market continued through both Democratic and Republican administrations. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush all--to some degree--continued that commitment. And yet today, this bill does not properly fund Section 8 housing vouchers. Families in need will suffer under this bill if we cannot amend it. We must house our people. Let's continue the legacy of this great nation. Please vote yes on the Nadler-Velazquez amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I will upset the normal order of things by first yielding 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first, let me note and thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for coauthoring this amendment with me. She could not be here on the floor right now, but it is her amendment as well as mine, and I want to express my appreciation to her in public for all the work that she has done on this amendment. Second, the distinguished chairman said that an outside interest group estimated the costs of the vouchers. The fact of the matter is, and I quote from a letter from some church groups, religious organizations throughout the country who wrote, ``Recent analyses performed independently by the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities suggest the committee's estimate is based on voucher cost assumptions that are too low'' because, in fact, they are a couple of years out of date. ``CBPP estimates that the Section 8 appropriation is approximately $580 million short of the funding that will be needed to fully renew vouchers leased in 2004.'' That means that about 85,000 vouchers will not be paid for, assuming the Congressional Budget Office and the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities are more correct than those of the Department, for which I would rather give them the benefit of the doubt than I would the Department. This amendment would restore funding for 23,500. Frankly, it is simply unacceptable in a time of rampant homelessness, in a time when in New York City, and I use this as an example because conditions are bad in many places, the waiting list for public housing was closed in 1994 and the waiting list is almost 200,000 since then. You cannot get on the waiting list in the last 9 years. People are desperate for housing. It is unacceptable to have a budget that purports to increase the number of Section 8 vouchers by zero, and that may very well, if in fact the CBO and the CBPP were correct in saying that HUD estimates of costs are wrong, may very well cut it by 85,000. That is just not acceptable. So I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment. Yes, it will present some difficulties perhaps with computerization. HUD can survive that. But this will enable 23,500 additional households to have decent housing, maybe 23,500 additional kids to be able to learn in school instead of not being able to learn in school because they have no place to do their homework and no decent place to literally hang their hats. This is a modest, minimal amendment. It is minimal decency. We should be doing it 10 times larger, but given the constraints of the budget, the constraints of the tax cut, this is the least we can do. I am sorry, by the way, if it were not for the constraints of the tax cuts and the budget that were forced on this side of the aisle by the other side of the aisle, we would not have to take $150 million away from this computerization program. We would not have to have that offset. We could simply say, in decency, let us help provide more people with decent housing. But we must do this offset. The offset may not be the best thing, but it is a heck of a lot better than 23,500 families not having decent housing. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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