Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I have read the language.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, passage of this bill once again by this House, which we do every Congress, knowing the Senate will not even look at it, will once again demonstrate the conviction of the Republican leadership that this is a good subject to exploit politically; and that is all it will demonstrate. Mr. Speaker, I will not talk too much about the merits of the bill right now; I will save that for general debate, but let me say a few things. I am in my 10th year in the House. My first 2 years there was a Democratic majority, and the Republicans used to complain about closed rules. How dare the Democrats refuse to allow Republicans, or anybody else, to bring amendments to the floor. Well, for the last 8 years, the Republicans have refused to allow amendments of any note to come to the floor on any bills except appropriations bills. Let us take this bill, for example. This bill, which ostensibly is designed to protect young women in situations where they are being lured across State lines by evil people to get them to have abortions without consulting their parents, which is an absurdity, but forget that for a moment, there were a number of amendments introduced in committee but not permitted on the floor, such as an amendment to say this bill should not apply if the person accompanying the minor across State lines was doing so because the reason the minor was pregnant was because she had been impregnated by her father. Picture a situation where the mother is dead and the father is guilty of incest and rapes the daughter, and now he refuses permission for her to get an abortion, and we are going to prosecute her grandfather or her brother or sister for helping her to go to a State which has a more enlightened law and allows her to get an abortion that she wants because she is 17 years old, and she wants an abortion lest she bear a child fathered by her father in an act of incestual rape. Maybe some people can come up with a reason against this amendment; I do not know. There are twisted minds in this world, but not to allow that amendment on the floor because they are afraid it will pass, they are afraid Members in this House will not have twisted minds and the amendment will pass? The real purpose of this bill is not to protect women, girls 17, 16 years old, not to protect them in situations such as I have just mentioned, the real purpose of this bill is simply to cut away at the right to abortion to the extent possible without falling afoul of Roe v. Wade. A second amendment not permitted on the floor is the amendment that would exempt clergy and grandparents and aunts and uncles from accompanying a person. I would simply point out also that even in committee the majority refused to allow amendments to be introduced by moving the previous question, an almost unheard of procedure. Mr. Speaker, what is the Republican majority afraid of?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this debate is not really about the parental consent, parental notification laws; those debates occur in State legislatures. This debate is whether Congress should attempt to give the power to one's State to export its law to another State by criminalizing crossing the State line to do something that is legal in that State with respect to abortion, and that, that is what makes this the 21 century Fugitive Slave Law, because the philosophy of the bill is we can control what our young people do wherever they do it, not in this State, but elsewhere. We can criminalize anyone helping to do something elsewhere. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) says criminal intent can be inferred, we know that. Well, the fact is, in some cases, it can. But let us assume that someone crosses the New York-Pennsylvania border, not necessarily because they want to cross a border, but simply because the nearest town with a clinic happens to be across the State border. The lines on the map are not lines on the street in front of you. You go to the nearest town, you help your young friend, your niece, your granddaughter, and it will be criminal, even if you had no intent to cross the State line, you were not even thinking about the States; it just happens that the nearest town is across the State line. I would also like to ask the gentleman from Ohio to yield for a question, if he would, on my time. I will ask the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) a question, and then I will yield. The bill said, except as provided in subsection B, whoever knowingly transports an individual, et cetera, et cetera. What does the bill mean by transport? I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. NADLER. What does the bill mean by the word ``transport''? Whoever knowingly transports an individual under 18, et cetera.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman, I am not asking the level of their involvement. But reclaiming my time, the bill seems to indicate the opposite. Normally, when we say ``transport,'' if I transport a box, I am driving the car and the box is on the seat or in the trunk. If I transport a person, I am driving the car, the person is in the car with me. My question is, if the person who wants to get the abortion, who is 17 years old and has a driver's license, is driving the car across the State line and she has asked someone to go along with her and he knows the purpose, is that person guilty of transporting? Is that person guilty of knowingly transporting her? The plain language of English would seem to indicate he is not transporting; she is.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to a bill which will have a catastrophic and cruel impact on young women and on the adults who care for them. I think every Member of this House believes that a young woman with an unintended pregnancy should make any decision about what to do in that very difficult situation with her parents in the warm, loving environment of her family. In fact, in the majority of cases, that is precisely what happens. Ideally, young women would not get pregnant at all. Ideally, they would not get raped by their fathers or step-fathers or boyfriends or mothers' boyfriends. Ideally, they would make mature and thoughtful decisions about when to become sexually active and to practice safe sex all the time, if they must practice sex at all. Ideally, all methods of birth control would be 100 percent effective. Ideally, when contemplating an abortion, young women would be able to confide in a loving parent who would assist them in making the right decision. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world; and Congress cannot legislate ideal circumstances where they do not exist. Because we do not live in an ideal world, young women do get raped. Young women are the victims of incest. Young women often lack the maturity to make sensible judgments about sexuality. Young women often do not know how to avoid pregnancy, thanks in large part to the mindless resistance on the part of many of their elders to sex and contraception education. And sometimes they get pregnant, and they fear they cannot go to their parents without fear of violence. This bill is not about strangers, as its supporters argue. This bill would make a criminal out of any caring adult who tried to help a young woman: a grandparent, an adult brother or sister, a clergy member, an aunt or an uncle. It would also allow a father who had raped his daughter to sue in law anyone who helped her deal with the consequences of his crime, because, in the words of this bill, his rights had been violated. Never mind that he raped the daughter and created the problem in the first place. There are times when, in wishing for an ideal world, the murderous angels of our better nature do more harm than good. This legislation is a perfect example of that human failing. It does not make the problem go away. It does not provide assistance to these young women. It only makes it more likely that a 15- or 16- or 17-year-old girl will have to face the consequences of her elders' wrongdoing alone. There is no moral or reasonable justification for doing that. We are told that States are required to have a judicial bypass available to a young woman who feels she cannot go to her parent, that a judge in those circumstances will exercise the judgment and permit her to have an abortion if the circumstances so indicate. The Supreme Court has required such a provision in State parental consent laws. But the fact is, and this is no secret, in many communities the so- called judicial bypass is a sham. Judges with a strong ideological or religious opposition to the constitutional right to choose often simply will not grant that permission. In some small communities, the judge may know the parents, may know the young woman, or may even be her teacher or some other authority figure in her life. To say that the judicial bypass will cure any ill parental consent laws may create is to ignore the realities of life; it is to pretend we live in an ideal world and to let these young women suffer the consequences when reality turns out to be more unpleasant. We are also told that by going to court the police will become involved in any case of rape or incest. The reality is not nearly so simple. Seeking a judicial bypass does not mean the court will believe the young woman or involve the authorities. Sometimes knowing the authorities will become involved is enough to scare the young woman away from going to court in the first place. Of course, a counselor at a clinic may be better able to involve the authorities in a manner that is helpful and non-threatening to the young woman than is a judge who may suspect that a teenager is lying in order to get the abortion that she wants. Judicial bypass procedures neither guarantee, nor does its absence preclude, the involvement of the authorities. As in the past two Congresses, we had hoped to offer amendments to make this unyielding legislation just a little more humane. We wanted to exempt grandparents, for example, so that if dad rapes the daughter and the mother is not coping with reality or is perhaps not alive, mom's mother can step in and take care of her granddaughter without facing a stretch in the Federal penitentiary and the threat of getting sued by the rapist. Unfortunately, even that modest effort to provide some ability for some adult close to the young woman to help her proved too much for the Republican majority, which will go to any lengths, no matter who gets hurt, no matter whose life is ruined, no matter who has to die, to pander to the extreme fringe of the anti-choice radicals. Well, being pro-life and pro-family should mean caring about what happens to real people facing real and tragic crises. This bill is evidence, if such evidence is needed, that there are Members of this House who do not care if a young woman must face the most difficult moment of her life alone, even, as has been the case in the past, she must die to prove the majority's political bona fides. She must die to prove the majority's political bona fides. I would note one other thing. Quite a few States, my own State of New York included, have refused to enact, to enact parental consent laws. I was a member of the State legislature when we considered such legislation, and I can tell my colleagues that we rejected that law, that bill, because the realities of these situations convinced us that it would do more harm than good. Now comes the party of States' rights in Federalism to tell us that they do not care what the people of our State think, they do not care what the legislature of New York and other States think, they are going to subject people who come to New York to the laws of their own States. They want to enact the 21st century version of the Fugitive Slave Act. They want to tell young women that they are the property, the property of their home States, and that they carry the laws of their home States on their backs if they go to another State which has a different view, and that they may not engage in perfectly legal activity if the law of the State from which they came makes it illegal there. This is unprecedented in any real way in American law, except for the Fugitive Slave Act. In the Fugitive Slave Act, we told South Carolina that she could reach out her hand to people, to slaves who had fled from North Carolina and gone to New York or Pennsylvania where freedom prevailed and said no, you are not free under the laws of Pennsylvania and New York, you must carry the law of South Carolina with you and the people up in New York must drag you back to slavery. This bill says if a young woman, with the help of some friend or adult who wants to help her goes to another State, she is not free to have an abortion if she wants, if the law of that State permits it, because we will permit the law of the other State from which she came to follow her, to reach out the long hand of the other State and say, wherever you go, you are the property of this State. We say, you cannot get the liberty to have the abortion you want in the other State that says you can, because we are going to drag you back and punish anyone who helped you go to that other State. What kind of liberty is this? What kind of Federalism is this? This is not only unconstitutional, it is an affront to the dignity and decency of every citizen of this country. It is an affront to the people of every State who have chosen not to enact the law that the majority wants to impose on them. If this Congress succeeds in doing this, it means that any State in the future will be able to reach across the country and control the lives of people in other States whom they own because they came from those States. It means that if you live in one State, even if you leave it and engage in a perfectly legal activity in another State, that first State can still punish you in that State. There is nothing more offensive to the idea that we are a free people who can go wherever we want without the permission of the government, and help our neighbors, and follow the law than this bill. This is the third time we have considered this bill. Thankfully, it has never gotten close to passage by the other body. Despite the iron fist that rules this House and suppresses free debate and free ideas by not allowing amendments on the floor, I trust that this is the third time that the Congress disposes of this issue without sending it to the President. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I did not ask what ``knowingly'' means, I asked what ``transport'' means. So in other words, if you take this person across State lines; now, what if she is 17 years old and she is driving, you are just accompanying her and holding her hand. Are you transporting her? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, I can read the bill, too.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, my point is, whoever knowingly transports. If the person who is getting the abortion is doing the driving, she is transporting. She is not subject to this bill. The person sitting next to her is not transporting her, under the plain English language. I have read the definitions in the bill. There are definitions in this bill of other terms, but not of the term ``transport.'' The plain English meaning is that if she is driving, no one is transporting her. She is transporting herself. So what this bill does is criminalize someone going with her, depending on who is at the steering wheel. Now, I do not think that was the intent of the law, of the bill, but I think it is the clear meaning of the bill. I think it is just one more instance of how sloppily drafted, of necessity, this bill has to be because of the nature of it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, the gentlewoman from Florida, showed us the horrible example of a perfectly legal ad in the Yellow Pages offering perfectly legal services in a State where it is legal to do so, as if there were something terrible about that. I do not think it is terrible, I think it is praiseworthy. The fact is, there are many young women under the age of 18, maybe 17, maybe 16, who cannot go to their parents; who desperately need an abortion and cannot go to their parents for fear of violence or whatever. This ad says, ``You can have help here.'' Nothing wrong with that. Many young women justifiably feel they would be physically or emotionally abused if forced to disclose their pregnancies to their parents, unfortunately. Nearly one-third of minors who choose not to consult with their parents when contemplating an abortion have experienced violence in their family, or feared violence, or feared being forced to live at home. We know of the case of Spring Adams, an Idaho teenager who was shot to death by her father, shot to death after he learned she was planning to terminate a pregnancy caused by his acts of incest with her. Do Members think she could have gone to him? And we know that judges often will not grant permission to have an abortion because of their own personal opinions. One study found that a number of judges in Massachusetts either refused to handle abortion petitions, or focus inappropriately, inappropriately under the law, on the morality of abortion, which is none of their business to determine, except for themselves, because their duty is to exercise the judicial bypass guaranteed by the law of that State. The American Medical Association has noted that because the need for privacy may be compelling, minors may be driven to desperate measures to maintain the confidentiality of their pregnancies. The desire to maintain secrecy against the parental notification and consent laws has been one of the leading reasons for illegal abortion deaths, deaths, since 1973. That is what we are dealing with here, young women who are so fearful of telling their parents, for whatever reason, that they would rather have a coat hanger abortion and have died as a result. When the Subcommittee on the Constitution held hearings on this bill, we heard from an Episcopal priest, the Reverend Katherine Ragsdale, the vicar of St. David's Episcopal Church, who discussed the actual case of a 15-year-old girl who had been raped and had become pregnant. She could not go to her father, who would throw her out of the house, and she had no other family to turn to. Of course, if she did, this legislation would place those other relatives in legal jeopardy if they helped her. Though they did not cross State lines, the Reverend Ragsdale drove the young woman to an abortion clinic, rather than allowing her to travel several hours alone by bus to and from the procedure. This is an act of kindness, not a criminal act. Reverend Ragsdale movingly described the pastoral counseling she provided to the young woman during the drive. This bill would make criminals of clergy providing this sort of pastoral care and guidance. Reverend Ragsdale's observations at the subcommittee are worth repeating: ``Mr. Chairman, you talked about all the reasons it is important for a girl to have parental involvement before a medical procedure, and you are absolutely right. If I thought that this bill would accomplish parental involvement, if I thought it would eliminate the kind of pain Ms. Roberts spoke about, this panel would be even more unbalanced than it is, because I would be on the other side. ``But it won't do that. This bill is not about resolving problems, this bill is about punishing people. While I understand that even the best of us have punitive impulses from time to time, we have no business codifying them in law. They are venal. They are beneath the dignity of any member of the human family.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have heart, I have children, or at least one child, and I will almost certainly vote no on this bill, and the gentleman has no right to cast aspersions on my motives or anybody else. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) for shuttling this bill through committee and to the floor. I also want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn) for working with me to bring this bill to the floor. As most Members know, this legislation will extend by 13 weeks disaster unemployment assistance, or DUA. DUA is extended only to those people who lost their jobs as a direct result of the September 11 terrorist attack on our country, but who do not qualify for normal unemployment insurance. Currently, the number of people receiving DUA stands at 2,500. That is what we are talking about in this bill, 2,500 people, although as individuals find work, hopefully this number will decline. These people overwhelmingly hold blue collar jobs and are the lowest paid in our economy. They include hotel workers, janitors and window washers. They are the most vulnerable members in our society and most in need of our help. Funding for this program is already in place by way of last year's supplemental appropriations act for New York disaster relief. This legislation is urgent as DUA benefits have already terminated. Without this extension, thousands of victims of the attack on our country will be left without any help in an economy that in New York has been devastated not only by the national economic melee, but also by the disaster of September 11. While we cannot make people whole from the effects of the devastating attacks of September 11, we must do all we can to ease the transition of these people from tragedy back to normal life. The Senate already passed this legislation last December. S. 1622, authored by Senator Clinton of New York, included a 26-week extension. In fact, the Committee on Transportation originally passed a bill, S. 1622, the Senate bill, by voice vote afterwards substituted for the bill that I introduced in the House. Unfortunately, in order to get this bill to the floor we had to make this bill only a 13-week extension. As I said earlier, DUA benefits run out in New York on March 17, which is to say 2 days ago, and in Virginia on March 21, which is 2 days from now. It is imperative that these people know as soon as possible that their benefits will be extended or renewed. I must point out that unlike regular unemployment, an individual is not entitled to 26 weeks which may be extended to 13 weeks. The program expires 26 weeks after the disaster is declared, and we are extending that by 13 weeks. An individual who started, perhaps because of bureaucracy, getting his assistance in November does not get anywhere near 26 weeks; it is cut back. So it differs between regular unemployment insurance there. I urge the House and Senate to pass this legislation as soon as possible and send it to the President for his signature. Again, I want to thank the chairman and the rest of the House for their support as we continue to recover from the devastation of September 11, both at home and abroad. I would also like to point out that the necessity for this legislation, for this emergency assistance to people, window washers, janitors, who worked at the World Trade Center and were deprived of their jobs by direct enemy action, but yet cannot get regular unemployment insurance, also shows us the necessity of restoring our unemployment system to what it was. Only about one- third of people who are laid off now get unemployment insurance because the restrictions that many States have imposed are so high. It used to be 60 percent and now it is down to one-third. So this bill shows the necessity for restoring the strength of our once-vibrant unemployment insurance system so that workers like this would be covered without the necessity of special legislation on their behalf. I thank the chairman and the rest of the House for their support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. I am glad here we are finally today, two days after the benefits ran out in New York, two days before they run out in Virginia. Unfortunately, this bill is not as the bill Senator Clinton originally passed in the Senate, as the bill that almost passed here by unanimous consent last December but arrived a few minutes too late from the Senate, and as the bill that I sponsored that was reported out of the committee unanimously about 3 weeks ago did, all of those bills said a 26-week extension. Unfortunately, this bill only says 13-week extension. Unfortunately, this also means that the Senate is going to have to take time presumably next week or later this week to change its bill to match our 13 weeks before it goes to the President, and there will be at least a week interruption in benefits because we delayed in doing our job in getting this bill to the floor. As I said before, we are not talking here about 39 weeks of benefits for individuals, but of 39 weeks of eligibility for the program from the date the disaster was declared. Most people did not start getting DUA right away. It took the bureaucracy some time. They started getting it in November or December, which means they are getting it for less than 26 weeks and with this bill for less than 39 weeks. We will probably have to, in light of how difficult it is for some people who were thrown out of work specifically by the attack on our country, we will probably have to be back here extending it for another 13 weeks later. I am appreciative of the work especially of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) and of others and of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), who helped get this bill to the floor; and I am hopeful that we will pass this bill today so that the interruption in benefits for the people in New York and in Virginia who were victimized by the attack directly will be as short as possible, and I extend my appreciation to all of them. And I urge approval of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2804, introduced by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), is a bill to designate the United States Courthouse located at 95 Seventh Street in San Francisco in honor of Judge James R. Browning. Since President Kennedy appointed him to the Federal bench in 1961, Judge Browning has served the public for over 40 years. In 1976, Judge Browning became the Chief Judge for the Ninth Circuit, the largest court in the country, and he served in that capacity for 12 years. He is a prolific writer and worker, publishing over 1,000 appellate decisions and authoring many other per curiam opinions. He is richly deserving of having this courthouse named after him, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the other Members of the delegation from California for introducing this bill. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter in support of this legislation from William C. Canby, Jr., a United States Circuit Judge in Phoenix, Arizona. U.S. Courthouse, Phoenix, AZ, September 6, 2001. Re H.R. 2804: The James R. Browning United States Courthouse. Hon. James L. Oberstar, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Oberstar: This letter is in support of H.R. 2804, a bill to designate the headquarters of our court, the United States Courthouse at 95 Seventh Street in San Francisco, as the ``James R. Browning United States Courthouse.'' Jim Browning has served our court magnificiently for the last forty years. For twenty-one of those years, I have been privileged to be one of his colleagues. Jim Browning was Chief Judge for my first several years on this court, and he exemplified, as he still does, exactly what a great judge should be. He is judicious, impartial, tolerant and, perhaps above all, so infused with good will toward his fellow men and women that he imparts a considerable degree of that quality to all who come in contact with him. Everyone across the entire spectrum of our courts respects Jim Browning. Our courthouse could not have a more fitting name! I understand that some celebrations of Jim Browning's tenure will be coming up in the near future; it would be wonderful if H.R. 2804 were law by that time, so that the events could be combined with a dedication. We would all be most grateful if you would support the prompt passage of H.R. 2804. Respectfully, William C. Canby, Jr., U.S. Circuit Judge. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.