Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Joint Public Affairs Committee for Older Adults on the occasion of its 25th anniversary. Since 1977, JPAC has been committed to ensuring a voice for older New Yorkers in community change and the policy-making processes that affect their lives. I have been proud to stand with JPAC many times through the years, and it is my great pleasure to congratulate JPAC on this occasion and to join their celebration. For 25 years, JPAC's citizen leaders have worked tirelessly to improve the lives of all New Yorkers by empowering older adults to advocate on their own behalf. JPAC educates older adults on legislative and consumer issues, in addition to providing them with important information on benefits and entitlements for which they may be eligible. JPAC has enabled a growing number of older people to participate in efforts to influence public policy while leading senior centers around the city to incorporate education and advocacy into its programs in innovative ways. Over the years, JPAC has come to play a significant role in promoting cooperation within the aging community around issues of shared concern. Among the programs I find most valuable is JPAC's ten-week intensive leadership training program, known as the Institute for Senior Action. For eight years, the Institute for Senior Action has given seniors the skills necessary to become more effective advocates in our community. Having had the opportunity to join JPAC at several of the Institute's graduation ceremonies, I have seen firsthand the pride, enthusiasm, and commitment to the community that JPAC's programs instill in participants. From consumer protection, to community safety, to health care and coverage, JPAC has contributed to the quality of life of all New Yorkers. I congratulate JPAC's staff, leadership and volunteers on a quarter century of success, and I wish them the very best for the future.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of New York Artists Equity Association (NYAEA), now celebrating its 55th anniversary. Since 1947, New York Artists Equity Association has been a strong advocate for legislation on behalf of visual artists, and has provided services to support the development of the visual arts in our communities. NYAEA not only fights for the future of the visual arts, but places the New York artistic community in the context of history, as a necessary component of society, one that enriches our lives. New York Artists Equity Association's mission of education, awareness, and support for the visual arts has provided the basis for its constant efforts. By promoting emerging artists in its wonderful Broome Street Gallery, it has successfully integrated those artists into the larger community. By preserving endangered visual art work, it assures the record of our rich artistic past. Through educational outreach, it has developed a new audience which is constantly expanding. Mr. Speaker, I particularly commend NYAEA, under the leadership of its Executive Director, Regina Stewart, for supporting visual artists at a time when the resources they receive from the government are simply not enough. NYAEA has provided support for many visual artists who otherwise would not have received help. Through referrals, legal services, and health care programs, the Association helps ensure economic stability for visual artists who might otherwise be forced to abandon their talents due to economic difficulties. By providing, communication within the community, it helps establish a strong support base for issues relevant to artists' needs. I stand here today to thank New York Artists Equity Association for all it has done to advocate for visual artists, consistent with the needs of their community. I am proud that NYAEA is in my Congressional District, and that its work reaches far beyond my District to help visual artists in the larger community. I also want to thank one of the Association's Past Vice Presidents, Doris Wyman, who serves on my Arts Advisory Committee, for consistently championing the needs of visual artists. Because of my on-going work with this fine organization and their leadership, I know of their constant efforts to change regressive policies on the arts and I commend them. For fifty-five years, NYAEA has supported visual artists and been a passionate advocate for their causes. I salute New York Artists Equity Association for helping to assure a stable artistic community--one that is, and always must be, an integral part of our heritage and culture.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the Spratt resolution would permit the use of military force, but only to eliminate the real danger we face, Iraq's possession of nuclear or chemical or biological weapons. The President's resolution would allow the administration to use military force to seek regime change in Iraq, a very dangerous course of action. It is one thing to say to Saddam Hussein, we are going to disarm you of your weapons of mass destruction. It is another thing to say, we are going to kill you, which is what regime change means. Faced with that threat, with that assurance, there would be nothing to deter Saddam Hussein from deciding, like Sampson in the Philistine temple, that he might as well pull down the world around him. Why should he not go down in history as an Arab hero by attacking Israel with chemical or biological weapons? Israel may then feel well to retaliate, and no one can calculate the course of escalation from there. Just the other day the Director of the CIA, George Tenet, warned the Senate that ``if Saddam Hussein concluded the survival of his regime were threatened, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist action.'' The Spratt substitute is the most effective way to go about disarming Saddam Hussein, while avoiding tactics that could very well end up in regional conflagration. It grants more limited, but still sufficient, power to the administration to meet the threat posed by Iraq's weapons program. It allows for the President to use force in conjunction with the U.N. if it becomes necessary. It does not, however, grant the President a blank check, on the model of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, as the main resolution before us does. I am proud to support this resolution. It maximizes the chances we will disarm Saddam Hussein and eliminate the real danger, without getting into a major conflagration.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I take the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of a hostile and aggressive Iraq very seriously. On September 11 when my district was attacked, I thanked God the terrorists did not have nuclear weapons. We all want to protect this Nation. The question before us today is not whether to protect America, but how best to do so. Saddam Hussein unquestionably poses a real danger. He has consistently shown a virulent hostility to the United States and to Israel, a willingness to invade other countries without provocation, a willingness to use chemical and biological weapons against civilian populations, a relentless drive to obtain weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, and a reckless aggressiveness. The conclusion is inescapable that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iraq would pose an intolerable threat to the United States and to world peace. That threat must be met, if at all possible, through the United Nations and in accordance with international law, but war must be the last resort, not the first option. The resolution before us is not a compromise. It is in all important respects still very much the original draft: a blank check, like the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. We must not grant the President a blank check. Make no mistake, this resolution grants the President the power to go to war entirely at his discretion. While the resolution pays lip service to the need for international cooperation, it does not require the President to seek it. While the resolution mentions a desire to work through the United Nations, it does not require the President to exhaust our options at the U.N. before starting a war. The resolution requires the President to inform Congress that efforts in the U.N. and the international community have failed, but he need not do so until after he starts a war. We must grant the President the power to take prudent action to meet the threat from Iraq but only action that does not itself threaten international peace and security. The United States should seek a U.N. resolution providing for the immediate return to Iraq of beefed-up arms inspection teams and demanding that they be afforded unfettered and unconditional access to all sites they deem necessary to accomplish their task of locating and destroying all chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and their production facilities. The U.N. resolution should authorize the use of military force to the extent necessary to overcome any Iraqi attempts to interfere with the inspection teams, and Congress should authorize the President to use such military force only to enable the inspection teams to do their jobs. We might this way be able to eliminate the threat of Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons without military conflict. But if military conflict occurred, we would be better off as part of a multilateral effort enforcing a Security Council inspection and disarmament order, with the onus on Saddam Hussein for starting the conflict, than we would as the Lone Ranger invading Iraq on our own, with most of the world looking on in disapproval. Let me remind my colleagues: Before they were ejected from Iraq, U.N. inspectors destroyed more weapons and more weapons facilities than did the coalition forces during the Gulf War. This proven, successful course of action should be fully utilized before we risk regional conflagration. I believe the Security Council would adopt a resolution embodying such a specific limited approach, and that, working through the U.N. and with other nations, the U.S. could participate in successfully implementing it. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the President insists that, in addition to disarming Saddam, we must overthrow his regime. Demanding regime change is extremely dangerous. It is one thing to tell Saddam he must disarm. It is quite another to demand the end of his regime. Faced with such a threat, which in practical terms means his death, there would be nothing to deter Saddam Hussein from deciding, like Samson in the Philistine temple, that he might as well pull the world down with him. Why should he not go down in history as an Arab hero by attacking Israel with chemical or biological weapons of perhaps devastating lethality? Israel might then feel compelled to retaliate, and no one could calculate the course of escalation from there. But Members do not need to take my evaluation of this threat. Just yesterday, the director of the CIA, George Tenet, told the other body that ``Baghdad, for now, appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical or biological weapons.'' But, he continued, if Saddam concluded the survival of his regime was threatened, ``he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist action.'' Mr. Speaker, we must constrain the administration from pursuing this perilous course. The substitute resolution offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) grants the President the authority to use military force as part of a multilateral effort to divest Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction. That is as far as we should go. We must draw this line, Mr. Speaker, not because we are unconcerned with our country's security, but precisely because we care so very, very much for it.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr President, Mr. Speaker, today marks a historic occasion for New York and for the United States Congress. This is the first Congress that has convened here in New York since the First Congress convened here to watch President Washington take the oath of office and to pass the Bill of Rights. We join here today not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans. The symbolic gesture of our joint meeting is both solemn and celebratory. It is solemn because we come here today to honor a city devastated by the most terrible single attack on American soil in our history, and the thousands of innocent people lost in that attack. As the elected Representative for the area of New York most directly impacted by the attacks of September 11, 2001, I can tell you that my constituents are grateful for the act of solidarity with New York that we show here today. I can also tell you that they are even more grateful that Congress has rallied to help this City for the past year. Our joint meeting today is also celebratory. One year ago, a group of vicious and heartless terrorists sought to cripple this city and this country by obliterating one of its great landmarks. It was their hope that not only would thousands be rendered lifeless, but that our way of life, our democracy, would be extinguished. Today, we celebrate the life and vibrancy of our democracy that still lives--and do so in a city that remains the most lively, diverse, and mighty on the face of the earth, despite the worst efforts of those terrorists. It is only right that we seek out those who sought to destroy us. But bombs and bullets are merely the tools we use in our self-defense. Revenge against our foes will come not through bloodshed, but through acts defiant of their goals. For the last year, despite the aim of the terrorists to kill our national spirit, this nation has proudly and defiantly displayed the flag from our homes, our cars, our community centers, and our houses of worship. Despite the murderous foes who sought to divide us, our people have joined in concerts celebrating our country and its ideals, and vigils marking our unity. Over two centuries ago, after stumbling through a government under the Articles of Confederation, with most of the world wishing to see our demise, we gathered here, defiant of the world and its wishes, resolved to make our great democratic experiment work. It is only fitting then, that we stand here again defiant of those who wish for our demise. Let there be no doubt, today we are telling the world that New York lives on, America lives on, and her ideals live on!

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the DOJ authorization bill because it does enhance the Violence Against Women Office and increase assistance to our law enforcement officers. I also applaud the provision of the bill that directs the Attorney General to conduct a study to assess the number of untested rape examination kits that currently exist nationwide. However, I know we could have done more. It would be nice to know how many rape kits are outstanding. But it is much more important that we fund the DNA analysis of the kits and solve crimes, rather than simply counting how many kits remain on the shelf. We know there are outstanding kits, anywhere from 150,000 to 500,000 of them, and we need money to test them. Asking for a study doesn't put any rapists behind bars. Now, you may ask, what else could we possibly do about this? Well, we could have put money for testing into the DOJ authorization bill. In fact, I asked the distinguished Chairman to do just that. He told me the study was the best he could do. Well, I know we can do better. In fact, the Senate already has. The Senate already had hearings, already had a markup, and already passed a bill under unaminous consent. Now, the House has the opportunity to take up S. 2513, the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act. We could have put this bipartisan bill into the conference report, but we didn't. The Senate bill included $500,000 for a study, but it didn't stop there. The Senate bill also includes $15 million a year for DNA testing for convicted felons, $75 million a year to test rape kits, and $150 million over five years to train nurses how to better collect evidence. That is a lot better and would make much more of an impact than an unfunded study. Now, some may say, we just didn't have time to address this problem. Well, I introduced a bill to solve this problem back in March of this year. It has never had a hearing. It has never been considered by the Judiciary Committee. It has been ignored, just like all the untested rape kits across America. So, we had plenty of time to address this issue, the Republican leadership simply chose not to. This is a serious effort to combat crime, locate and apprehend rapists, and use powerful evidence to put them behind bars. We all know that DNA evidence is essential to solving crimes. It can lead to punishment of the guilty and the freeing of the innocent. The Department of Justice released a statement yesterday that mentioned the ``unprecedented success in linking serial violent crimes by registering more than 80 matches against the FBI's National DNA Index System (NDIS) last month.'' The Department also states that ``two of these matches resulted in the arrest in Pennsylvania of the perpetrator of two rapes.'' The DOJ reports that the DNA evidence solved 24 previously unsolved cases, and that nine matches involved connecting together previously unrelated crime scenes. We must commit the necessary resources now to empower law enforcement to analyze all of the DNA evidence they collect, so that they can solve cases and bring justice to American families. We already have a non-controversial bill that we could make law very quickly (we could even do it today), and it would be an immediate benefit to people all across America, especially victims of rape and sexual assault. It is time for Congress to lend a hand to our law enforcement officers and provide them with the funds needed to solve these crimes and put rapists behind bars. Since some Members were unwilling to include the Senate rape kit bill in this authorization bill, I now urge the leadership to bring the Senate bill up for a vote as soon as possible. I have a letter here signed by more than a dozen Members of Congress urging Majority Leader Armey to take up the Senate bill, and I ask unanimous consent that this letter be included as part of the Record. I also ask unanimous consent to include the Statement by the U.S. Department of Justice that I mentioned earlier. Statement of U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation The FBI Laboratory today lauded state and local laboratories unprecedented success in linking serial violent crimes by registering more than 80 matches against the FBI's National DNA Index System (NDIS) last month. Additionally, the FBI's federal convicted offender program recorded its first NDIS match during the final week in August. The federal match was between the federal convicted offender database and a DNA profile from a case involving a sexual assault of a juvenile in Tampa, Florida contributed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Two weeks later, as a result of this match, an arrest was made in this case. The final week of August was one of the most successful weeks ever in the four years that NDIS has been operational. During that week, 33 matches were made, 17 by Oklhoma in that state's upload of DNA profiles into NDIS. To illustrate the power and reach of NDIS. Oklahoma's DNA matches were made with cases in the FBI Laboratory, Kansas, Colorado, Missouri, Texas, California, Arizona, and Maine. Examples of other matches included the FBI Laboratory matching a profile from New York; and Virginia posting matches with Washington state and Oregon. Of the 33 matches made in the last week of August, 24 matched convicted offender DNA profiles already contained in the national database with DNA profiles from unknown individuals obtained at crime scenes or from rape kits, thus solving these previously unsolved cases. Two of these matches resulted in the arrest in Pennsylvania of the perpetrator of two rapes. The other nine matches involved connecting together previously unrelated crime scenes. The FBI implemented NDIS is October, 1998 to allow state laboratories the ability to electronically compare and exchange DNA profiles with one another in an effort to link serial violent offenses. Today 44 states, the FBI and U.S. Army Lab participate in the NDIS program NDIS contains nearly 1.4 million offender DNA samples and 47,000 DNA profiles developed from crime scenes and rape kills. In the four years of NDIS, there have been approximately 5,000 DNA profile matches across 36 states and the District of Columbia. In December, 2000 legislation was passed which authorized collection and inclusion of DNA samples of certain federal offenders into NDIS. Full implementation of the federal convicted offender program began in July, 2002. In only the second upload of federal data, the first federal match was made.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a cruel attempt to protect insurance companies by trampling the rights of consumers. We are told today the bill is necessary to drive down insurance rates because juries award too much money to plaintiffs. But that is a diversion from the real problem, which is very simple: mismanagement by the insurance companies. Insurance companies make their money by investing the premiums they collect in the stock market. When the market is strong, they keep premiums artificially low, because they can make plenty of money in the markets. When the market turns sour, they must dramatically increase premiums to cover their costs. It is a predictable cycle, and that is why once about every 10 years when the market goes south, we hear of a great crisis which is then blamed on out-of-control lawsuits and the consumer has to get it in the neck. Mr. Speaker, lawsuits account for the same minuscule fraction of health care costs as they always have. Studies have shown the average jury award has not changed at all in the last decade, so why the sudden crisis? Because the market is in a tailspin and the insurance companies need to recoup their losses because they kept the rates too low during the good years. But why should injured patients pay to bail out the failed management of these companies? And who seriously believes that premiums will go down if this bill is passed? As Debora Ballen, executive vice president of the American Insurance Association said, ``Insurers never promised that tort reform would achieve specific premium savings,'' just savings to their bottom line, I guess. And, of course, the Republican Committee on Rules refused to allow an amendment on the floor that would say that they have to pass on the savings to the doctors, to the consumers. In pursuit of this giant bailout, what we have here is a breathtaking assault on the rights of consumers and patients. Take the $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages, a figure that might have been reasonable in 1975 when the MICRA law was passed in California; it is woefully inadequate today. The equivalent today would be $1.5 million. Again, the Republican Committee on Rules refused to allow an amendment to even say, okay, $250,000, we will put in an inflation amount to adjust it, so it does not decrease to nothing with inflation. If we maintain this cap now, it will be impossible for consumers to hold doctors accountable for malpractice in the future. Not content merely to cap malpractice suits, this bill also guts, guts State HMO laws, protects big drug companies and medical product manufacturers, makes punitive damages almost impossible to assess, and places an unreasonable statute of limitations on injured patients. Mr. Speaker, we should not be misled by the bill's supporters. Do not believe for a second that insurance rates will go down as a result of this bill. This cruel bill should be seen for what it is: another gift from the Republican majority to the big insurance companies at the expense of patients, consumers, and, I might add, doctors. This irresponsible bill should be disapproved.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. I think a dose of reality may be helpful in this debate. The extremist pro-abortion, pro-choice forces want women to have their constitutional rights. The people who have gotten 85 percent of the hospitals in this country not to be willing to provide an abortion to a woman who requests it want to deny, to make it impossible, for women to exercise what the Supreme Court says is their constitutional right. That is the crux of the debate. Let us have a dose of reality. Fact one: this bill has never been considered by any committee of this House, not in hearings, not in markup, not ever. A cynical person might view it as a crass attempt to pander to an extremist constituency on the eve of an election, especially since we know it is dead on arrival in the Senate. But you do not have to be cynical to know that this bill needs to be looked at more carefully, at the very least. Every Member should make up for the negligence of the committees of jurisdiction in not considering this bill by reading the fine print and not listening only to the rhetoric. Fact two: this bill, despite its lofty title, is not about discrimination. It would cancel out every State law protecting a woman's right to choice and the right of every American to demand health care coverage that meets her medical needs. This Congress has failed to act on prescription drug coverage. This Congress has killed any hope of universal health care coverage. Now the Republican leadership of the House wants to help the for-profit health care industry rob our constituents of medical services to which they have a constitutional right. Fact three: this bill is not about religious liberty or conscience. Read the bill. Copies of it are sitting on the table just outside the Chamber. The bill covers any hospital, any HMO, any insurer, any facility, any organization, any plan, even if they are for-profit, even if they do not have religious or moral objections to an abortion. I am not aware that HMOs or insurance companies have religious consciences, even if they just want to save a little money at the expense of our constituents. Fact four: nearly every State protects the right of any individual who objects on moral or religious grounds to performing abortions. So that issue is a red herring. It does not need further discussion. The States protect that right already. Fact five: There is a domestic terrorist movement that uses violence, murder, bombings and harassment to undermine the ability of women to go to the doctor and receive constitutionally protected health care services. Many medical facilities have knuckled under to this wave of domestic terrorism and simply stopped providing those services. This bill rewards those terrorists. Fact six: This bill is not limited to the actual performance of abortions. It would also apply to laws that require health care providers to supply women with basic information so that they can make informed decisions about their health care options, exercising their consciences. The consciences that are being violated by this bill are the consciences of women who may want to choose to avail themselves of their constitutional right to choose to have an abortion. This bill would also apply to some forms of birth control. Let us be clear, this bill is not about religious freedom or protecting the right of conscience. That is already protected by law. This bill is simply an attempt to make it harder for women to obtain an abortion, to vital health care services. If this Congress is unable expand access to health care, the least Members can do is vote not to restrict it further.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, on September 11, in the morning, I was down here in Washington, and I was preparing to come to the office 10 to 9:00 in the morning; and I put on the television to see the weather, and I saw the picture of the World Trade Center burning, and then as I watched, the second plane flew in, and I knew immediately it was a terrorist attack. I knew I had to get home because it was the middle of my district. I went immediately to the train station because I assumed they would ground the airplanes and probably the cars would not get across the bridges and tunnels. It took me most of the day to get home, and as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) mentioned, I often take the train to go home to New York, and it was always my habit, as we approached the city, to look out the right side window to see how far away I could see the first buildings, the World Trade Center usually, about 20 miles away, even before I got to Newark. When I looked out the window and saw a huge plume of smoke where the towers ought to be reaching up, I do not know, 10, 20,000 feet and then spread half across New Jersey, it was the most heartrending sight one could ever see. Then when I got out of the train finally, took from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., normally a 3-hour trip, at Penn Station, 33rd Street and 8th Avenue, not a car in sight. Nothing moving. Not a person in sight on the middle of a weekday. It was an incredible sight to see like a scene from some surrealistic movie. Mr. Speaker, this attack on New York was an attack on our country, not just on New York. It is altogether fitting that Congress should meet again in New York as it did in 1790, I think it was, 1789, for two purposes. One, to show solidarity with the people of New York and certainly the voting of $21.4 billion in funds to help the City and State rebuild, to help heal the wounds, is a great show of solidarity by the Congress of the United States and the President on behalf of the people of the United States. It is a great show of solidarity with the people of New York. But meeting in New York is a very symbolic act of solidarity which is very, very fitting on the first anniversary of this great tragedy. The second purpose, I think, in meeting in New York is frankly to say to the terrorists you have not accomplished anything. You may have wounded us, you may have hurt us, you may have cost 3,000 lives for whom we grieve, but you have not seriously hurt the United States, you have not defeated the United States, and you will not. It is said, Mr. Speaker, that after the attack on Pearl Harbor when his officers came to congratulate Admiral Yamamoto of the Imperial Japanese Navy for the successful attack, it is said that he replied to them ``Gentlemen, I fear that all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill it with a terrible resolve,'' and so it proved to be. Mr. Speaker, the attack on our country, the attack on New York, I think, has awakened a country that may have been sleeping or partially sleeping to the threat posed to all of us by Islamic terrorism. John F. Kennedy in 1960, referring to the struggle with Communism at that time said, we were in the middle of a long twilight struggle. I very much believe and fear that we are, again, in for a long twilight struggle until we defeat the scourge of terrorism in this new century. But it is a battle we must wage, a battle we must win if civilization is not to descend into anarchy and if our freedoms are to be preserved. I know we will win this. We will fight this war resolutely. We will win it, and we will make the people who started it rue the day that they awakened a sleeping giant and filled it with a terrible resolve. So I very much support this resolution.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker would be more impressive if the gentlewoman would acknowledge that the AMA now opposes this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the sponsors of this bill do not want an open debate.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Let me summarize this bill first on the substance. This bill is really simply an attack on the very idea of the woman's right to choose to have an abortion, a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. It is an appeal to people's emotions, using falsehoods and false claims. Let me remind my colleagues of several facts. One, there are no abortions in this country in the last trimester of pregnancy except to save the life, the health of the mother, because that would be illegal. Two, the gentleman says that the procedures outlined in this bill are never necessary to save the health of the mother, but I would point out that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Nurses Association, the American Medical Women's Association in an amicus curiae brief to the Court, cited approval by the Supreme Court, concluded ``especially for women with particular health conditions, there is medical evidence that D&X procedures may be safer than available alternatives.'' The political posturing of Congress is no substitute for the medical expertise of doctors. The distinguished chairman said there was a moral consensus against this procedure, but the fact is when put before the voters in referenda in Colorado, Maine and Washington State, voters rejected bans very similar to this bill. What moral consensus? The Supreme Court has very clearly told us that this bill is unconstitutional because despite the rhetoric that this is a late-term abortion bill to save fully formed fetuses, the fact is that it bans abortions well before viability, and the Supreme Court in Carhart said, ``Even if the statute's basic aim is to ban the D&X procedure, its language makes clear that it also covers a much broader category of procedures and therefore imposes an unconstitutional burden on women.'' The health of the mother. The Supreme Court has told us that for such a bill to be constitutional, it must have an exception for the health of the mother, and what human being would not want to have an exception for the health of the mother? So we destroy her health for an ideological reason? The findings of the bill that such procedures are never relevant, are never necessary for health are political findings, not medical findings, as we have noted above, and would be disregarded by the Supreme Court, as the Court has told us in the most recent cases. By its own terms, because lacking a health exception, this bill would sanction grievous bodily harm to a woman rather than let her and her doctor do what is necessary in their judgment to safeguard her health and her welfare. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill is a sham. Because it is unconstitutional, because it is clearly and facially unconstitutional, it can do nothing to avert any of the horrors cited by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and by other supporters of the bill. If the supporters wanted, we could enact a bill that would ban late-term abortions with an exception for where the life and health of the mother is at risk. Such a bill would be constitutional and might accomplish something. It would not be clearly disingenuous and hypocritical, but the sponsors of this bill do not want to do that. They prefer a sham bill. They prefer posturing. Instead of doing something, they would rather have a lot of emotion against a woman's right to choose. But make no mistake, this bill is a sham. It would do nothing. It is unconstitutional. We should vote against this bill. It is an insult to American women, and it is an insult to our collective intelligence. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).