Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sister Rita Nowatzkl for her distinguished service to the children and families of New York City. A Sister of Charity for over fifty years, Sister Nowatzkl has dedicated herself to protecting the most vulnerable members of our community. As she enters her retirement, she remains unwavering in her commitment to speak for those who are voiceless and remind us all of our responsibility to aid the poorest members of our community. In 1990, Sister Nowatzkl joined the New York Foundling Hospital as its public advocate. In the years since, Sister Nowatzkl has proven her reputation as an innovative administrator and masterful advocate. She produced ``The Foundling,'' the first book documenting the Hospital's 137-year history of aiding orphans, poor families and children. She raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the United Way, saved crucial family services in the New York City budget, and lit up the Empire State Building every April to commemorate Child Abuse Prevention month. As an artful advocate for our children's well-being, Sister Nowatzkl has worked at the city and state level to craft policies and programs that will assist the most vulnerable members of our community. One major component of the work of Sister Nowatzki is her desire to instill in young people an interest and commitment to participate in government and public policy and to take an active role in the issues that affect them. As a result, we know that her legacy will live on in the Hunter College public service scholars she has trained throughout the years. Sister Rita Nowatzki is a passionate, empathetic and nurturing Sister of Charity. Her dedicated work to promote social justice will benefit New York for years to come. As much as we will miss her ever-vigilant leadership, we know that her spirit of compassion will continue to grace us. As she begins the next chapter of her life, we thank her wholeheartedly for her tireless work to make our city a better place, and we wish her the very best in the years to come.

Mr. NADLER

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to offer this amendment along with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, in that case, let me never take yes for an answer. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman, and I urge everyone to vote for it and I suppose, aside from saying that this deals with the question of shielding records in settlements. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment with the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt and gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed to prevent the sealing of information regarding settlements of class action lawsuits--information that would protect the health and safety of others. I have been concerned for a number of years about agreements to seal the information about settlements of lawsuits that affect public health and safety. More often than not, a class action suit is filed because a number of people have been harmed by the actions of a large corporation. They come together to seek to recover damages by providing that a company behaved in a way that resulted in foreseeable harm to public health and safety. Often, the company settles the lawsuit, pays the people it harmed who sued, and then tells them to be quite. But the company may never change its dangerous practices. They simply regard the lawsuits as the cost of doing business, and ignore the underlying problem. Since the companies force the plaintiffs never to discuss the problems with anyone else, more people end up getting hurt by the companies. This is reprehensible. The Firestone Tire situation is a case in point. One of the main reasons why there was not timely public disclosure of the dangers of Firestone tires is because Firestone insisted on a series of gag orders when settling product liability lawsuits. An article in the September 25, 2000, edition of the Legal Times points out that: One of the principal roadblocks to timely public disclosure of the danger of Firestone tires has been a series of gag orders the company insisted on as a condition of settling product liability lawsuits in the early 1990s. Simply put, Firestone made a calculated determination that they would compensate victims so long as the plaintiffs agreed not to share their stories with other victims or the public. Congress was given the opportunity to address this very problem in 1995 when an amendment was offered that would prevent such gag orders if the public safety need outweighed the privacy interests of the litigants. Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated, with opponents arguing that the information was proprietary information that does not belong in the public domain. The reality is that the release of such information in the Firestone case 7 or 8 years ago potentially could have saved scores of human lives. We can't blame the people who settled their case for recovering damages and agreeing to the gag orders as a condition of getting the money. But as a result, the public is kept in the dark, and many more people are injured. This should not happen again. It is important for the people to be aware of the health and safety hazards that may exist so that other people can make informed choices about their lives, and, I might add, so that public agencies, perhaps, can crack down on such dangers. To often critical information is sealed from the public and other people may be harmed as a result. Let me add that this amendment is very reasonably drafted. The amendment is written in such a way that the judge must make a finding of fact where a gag order is requested. If the judge finds that the privacy interest is broader than the public interest, then the judge must issue the gag order. If the judge finds that the public interest in the health and safety outweighs the primary interests asserted, the judge may not issue the gag order. The judge also has to make sure the gag order is drafted as tightly as possible. This will prevent the unnecessary disclosure of confidential information, but will not allow the sealing of information that may harm the public. When it comes to health and safety, public access to class action lawsuit materials is absolutely essential. I urge my colleagues to support the Nadler/Delahunt/Johnson Amendment.

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, earlier I asked for a recorded vote on amendment No. 2, as modified. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw that request.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We today consider legislation reaffirming an important principle which is enshrined in the laws of all 50 States and unquestioned in law, that an infant who is born and who is living independently of the birth mother is entitled to the same care as any other child similarly diagnosed regardless of whether labor was induced or occurred spontaneously. It has never been particularly clear to me why we need to legislate that which most Members of Congress and the general public already understand to be the law; but if the majority is interested in restating well-settled law, there is no harm to that. The same measure passed last year as an amendment to the Patients' Bill of Rights legislation in the Senate by a vote of 98-0, which is about as uncontroversial as something can get. Certainly it proved to be less controversial than the Patients' Bill of Rights. I am pleased that the majority has made a serious effort in this draft of the bill to make clear that this bill has nothing to do with matters related to abortion, even going so far as to add subsection (c) further clarifying that point. Whatever concerns some may have had that this bill might be some clever way to undermine the rights protected under Roe v. Wade have, I think, been eliminated. Unless someone attempts to disrupt this effort by dragging the abortion debate back into it, I have little doubt that the bill will pass without much controversy. I would like to address the concern that our Republican colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), has enunciated most eloquently. That is the standard of care employed by neonatologists when faced with a nonviable newborn or clearly critical ill or massively deformed newborn. These are difficult medical issues and often horrendous circumstances which confront families hoping for the gift of parenthood. I am aware of the fact that these are complex issues with which doctors, hospitals, families and courts grapple every day. What is important to remember is that this legislation, by its plain meaning and by the stated intent of the authors, does not intrude into these difficult decisions or change the standard of care required by law. As the committee's report makes clear, ``The protections afforded newborn infants under H.R. 2175 for purposes of Federal law are consistent with the protections afforded those infants under the laws of the 30 States and the District of Columbia that define a live birth in virtually identical terms. Like those laws, H.R. 2175 would not mandate medical treatment where none is currently indicated. While there is debate about whether or not to aggressively treat premature infants below a certain birth weight, this is a dispute about medical efficacy, not regarding the legal status of the patient. That is, the standard of medical care applicable in a given situation involving a premature infant is not determined by asking whether that infant is a person. Medical authorities who argue that treatment below a given birth weight is futile are not arguing that these low-birth-weight infants are not persons, only that providing treatment in these circumstances is not warranted under the applicable standard of medical care. H.R. 2175 would not affect the applicable standard of care, but would ensure simply that all born-alive infants, regardless of their age and regardless of the circumstances of their birth, are treated as persons for purposes of Federal law.'' I do not want to trivialize the concerns of neonatologists, but I was gratified by the testimony that we received from the majority witnesses at our subcommittee hearing on this legislation, which indicated that, while an infant may be considered ``born alive'' under this legislation, this proposed law would not in any way substitute the medical judgment of Congress for the judgment of doctors on the scene or interfere with the painful decisions that families must make under the most difficult of circumstances. We must respect families and not have the big hand of government make their worst moments even more unbearable. I trust the sponsors of this legislation are in agreement on this point. There has been some debate over the question, and the gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned this, whether there is some sort of recognized legal right to a dead baby when a parent intends to abort a fetus. My colleagues well know that the line drawn by the Supreme Court is that of viability within the womb, and that outside the womb the normal laws governing the appropriate care of newborns, taking into account the prognosis made by a trained health care provider, apply. This bill reinforces the law as we know it to be. It does not change it in any respect. I hope that we can agree for once to avoid the overheated rhetoric, deal with the bill in front of us and not some other unrelated grievance. As the Hippocratic Oath states, it will ``do no harm.'' If we must put on a show for some of the antiabortion extremists, let us get over it and get back to dealing with the real problems this country has. I want to say also with respect to the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin of, the question of born alive, of a right to a dead baby, has been joined into question only in the fevered imaginations of some in the antichoice camp. But there is no harm in assuaging their concerns, there is no harm in making clear that the law is what we always know it to be. There is no right to a dead baby in an attempted abortion. There is no right, it is against the law, it is murder, to kill an infant born alive. The cases that were cited did not deal with a baby born alive under the definition in this bill, which is also the definition of the laws of most of the States, it dealt with a baby prebirth. So there is no problem with this bill, it has nothing to do with abortion, it does not do harm to neonatology, and I see no harm in passing the bill. I see no good in passing the bill either, except that it will satisfy the concerns of some people about some recent Supreme Court decisions, and that is a useful enough thing, so we can get back to debating the real issues. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just a few brief comments. The gentleman from Ohio mentioned the hearings that were conducted on this bill and the testimony of Nurse Jill Stanek. It is very interesting that two hearings were held on this bill, two separate years, with the exact same witnesses. The majority could not find more than one witness, Nurse Stanek, to describe these allegedly horrible things that are occurring. The majority's witness, Dr. Bowes, said even in the situations described by majority witness Nurse Jill Stanek, Dr. Bowes, the majority witness stated, ``I don't think this legislation changes medical care for those babies.'' The fact is, we cannot guarantee that in a country as large as this, where the laws of all 50 States and the District of Columbia already say what this bill would say, that we cannot guarantee no one violates the law. We cannot guarantee it. Nonetheless, the majority has not been able to point to one prosecution. Now, it may be, assuming that what Nurse Stanek described actually happened, most of her testimony was hearsay, but assuming it was true, maybe the authorities in that county should have prosecuted. But the fact is, the courts have been very clear, there is no such thing as the right to a live-birth abortion. A baby born alive is a human being under the terms of the law in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. This bill merely restates that, so we have no problem with that. But we should not get into the rhetoric, we should not get into the overheated rhetoric of the few who wish to suggest that viable, healthy infants are being allowed to die in our Nation's hospitals. It is simply not true. If it is true, then people ought to be prosecuted for murder, and the fault, if it is true, lies with the prosecuting authorities wherever that may happen. So I do not think there is a big problem here. The court decisions that were cited all referred to babies or to fetuses really still in utero. Once outside of the mother's body, they are babies, there is no legal right to kill them. God forbid. It would be murder. This bill does not change that. There is no harm in restating it, I think. I think we have taken care of the concerns of the neonatologists about the standard of care. So I support the bill simply to put at rest the fevered apprehensions about nonexistent threats. But let us not overstate those nonexistent threats, and if they are existent, they ought to be prosecuted. If the majority really knows of such cases, I hope they get on the cases of whoever the district attorney is and say, why are you not doing something about them, because it is already against the law, unless, of course, the descriptions of those cases are not as stated. But if they are as stated, the law already makes that murder. This bill retains that as murder. It is a harmless bill. It is a bill that does nothing, but is harmless. And why not put people's fears at rest? So I still urge people to support the bill. But we should not get carried away and imagine that under the guise or name of ``abortions'' any of this nonsense is going on, because if it is going on, it is murder under the law today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman, I am more worried about bombs in the containers than about immigrants in the containers. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), a great supporter of administration reform.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1885 combines the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act with a short extension of section 245(i) of the immigration laws. I plan to support this legislation, in part because the border security piece will strengthen the security of our borders and enhance our ability to deter potential terrorists while balancing the needs of law enforcement. We have been vigilant in protecting the civil rights upon which this Nation depends. As for section 245(i), we should be extending it permanently. Instead, this bill provides only a modest extension. In fact, what the bill gives with one hand it actually takes away with the other. While it appears to extend section 245(i) until November 30, 2002, many people will not qualify because of the additional requirement that eligibility for section 245(i) be established prior to August 15, 2001, last year. Unfortunately, this bill is insufficient in time and stingy in scope. If the last extension is any guide, H.R. 1885 will cause great panic among immigrants, and create an opportunity for fraudulent immigration advisors or ``notarios.'' In contrast, a full restoration of section 245(i) to what it was before 1998 would allow the thousands of law-abiding immigrants who are on the brink of becoming permanent residents to apply for their green cards while in the United States. It would allow wives, husbands, and children of U.S. citizens and permanent residents to stay together in the United States, rather than being forced to leave the country, sometimes for years, to apply for their green card. I cannot understand how anyone who claims to support family values, who thinks that it is useful for children to have two parents together, not one here and one in another country for several years, could oppose the permanent extension of section 245(i). Section 245(i) is not an amnesty for immigrants, it is simply a device to ensure that while permanent residents married to American citizens, people who have completed all their requirements, are waiting for the bureaucracy of the INS to complete their work, they not be forced to leave their families and go abroad for months or years. If the administration and House leadership are serious about helping immigrants and are serious about our relationship with Mexico, then we should be passing immigration laws that do far more than this bill does; at the very least, a permanent extension, not a mere 2-year extension of section 245(i). While I support this legislation, we should be considering a full restoration of section 245(i). We will continue to push for such an extension until the administration and the leadership of the House agree to it and we accomplish full restoration of section 245(i). Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon). (Mr. CANNON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. A lot of references have been made to 9-11 in this debate today. 9-11 occurred in my district. I would remind people that the people who committed that dastardly act were in this country legally. So this bill has nothing to do with them, nothing to do with them. Also, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) says the people we are talking about, under section 245(i), came into this country illegally. No, they did not. They came in legally under a tourist visa or a student visa or a work visa, and they met all the requirements over the years to get a green card and a permanent residence. But the bureaucracy of the INS frustrated them by delaying approval of that green card, and completion of the bureaucratic work passed the expiration of their visa. For that reason, under current law, they have to leave the country. They may have to leave their family. Perhaps they married while in America and perhaps they have children who are American citizens. They have to leave their country, go abroad, perhaps for years, reapply, and then wait for the INS bureaucracy to finish what they should have finished beforehand. That is cruel. That is separating families from American citizens. That is unnecessary. That is all we are talking about here. All talk about amnesty and terrorism is nonsense and irrelevant to this bill, and so I urge the passage of this bill.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).

Mr. NADLER. No, Mr. Speaker, I am not.

Mr. NADLER. Certainly.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, in that case I will ask the gentleman from Wisconsin if he will split the time with the minority party.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mothers' Voices on the occasion of its 10th anniversary. Mothers' Voices is an organization of mothers and supporters, based on Manhattan's West Side, that works to educate our families about the prevention of HIV/AIDS and to advocate for creative and effective public policy to stem the tide of this devastating epidemic. While the rate of HIV/AIDS infection among young people under 25 continues to climb, it is increasingly necessary to mobilize our entire community to expand education and prevention programs. Despite the advancements in research and treatment of AIDS, the statistics on the rate of infection are disheartening. The Centers for Disease Control recently announced that the HIV/AIDS infection rate for the U.S. has risen by 8 percent in the last year alone. New York had the highest rate of increase, at 47 percent. Approximately half of the 40,000 new HIV infections occurring annually in America are in young people under the age of 25. Every hour of every day, two Americans between the ages of 13 and 24 become infected with HIV. The CDC report recommends the need for community-based outreach and education, like the programs offered by Mothers' Voices. As an organization of parents, Mothers' Voices has the unique ability to educate young people about the devastating consequences of HIV/AIDS. Under the leadership of President Suzanne Benzer and Executive Director Carol Henry, Mothers' Voices has worked to inform the public about the deadly effects of HIV/AIDS and how to properly prevent infection. As the toll of HIV/AIDS on our families and communities mounts higher and higher, it is imperative that Mothers' Voices keeps working to provide educational outreach and advocacy. I wholeheartedly congratulate Mothers' Voices for ten successful years of educating our families, raising awareness and advocating for our children's health and well being.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. The best way we know to lower prices and improve customer service in any market is to increase competition. This bill does exactly the opposite. It would make it easier for the big-money phone companies to squeeze their competitors and to force the remaining CLECs, competitive local exchange carriers, into bankruptcy. It would raise prices for competitors and decrease incentives for local monopolies to open their markets to competition. Less competition, higher prices and worse customer service will be the result. This bill turns the Telecom Act of 1996 on its head. It would allow the local Bell monopolies to have access to all long distance data markets, whether or not they face competition in the local level. The Tauzin-Dingell bill says, we do not care if the Bells have a monopoly at the local level, we are going to allow them to offer long distance data services. We all realize soon there will be no distinction between data and voice, since both data and voice can be reduced to the zeros and ones. Data is voice, for all practical purposes. Tauzin-Dingell says the Bells do not have to open their networks for competition. If they modify existing lines, they do not have to provide open access to their networks at prices that allow for competition. The Bells are essentially seeking the ability to price their competitors out of business and extend their local monopolies. We need to stand up to the Bell companies and say no. We believe competition is the best way to improve customer service and lower prices to consumers. We support true competition and ought to oppose anticompetitive legislation like Tauzin-Dingell. One other point. We support more competition in the cable markets, as well. I am concerned that that local cable monopoly is raising prices and limiting the choice of consumers. From what I understand, Tauzin-Dingell does not even address the core business of cable companies, which is to provide multichannel viewing services. If this bill passes, no one is saying consumers will have more choice in the TV viewing market. They are only promising choice for the broadband markets. The problem is there already is choice in the broadband. This bill is not about cable companies; it is about local telephone companies themselves. We should not support one monopoly simply because another exists in another market. I urge everyone to oppose this bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Lower East Side People's Federal Credit Union (LESPFCU) on the occasion of the grand opening of its Avenue C ATM. Since 1986, the Lower East Side People's Federal Credit Union has served the financial needs of low-income neighborhood residents who are not served by commercial banks. For over 15 years, since the closing of the last commercial bank in the Lower East Side community, the credit union has maintained its goal of stimulating the economic and community development of the neighborhood by providing a safe, sound, and democratic alternative to traditional banks. Today, nearly 4,000 area residents and employees are members of the credit union. Including the extended family of credit union members who benefit from its services, the credit union serves close to 10,000 Lower East Side community members. As of December 2001, LESPFCU has made over $8 million in loans to 3,488 members of the community, enabling them to realize their dreams of home ownership, starting a small business, or furthering their education. The Lower East Side People's Federal Credit Union has now opened its second ATM location on Avenue C between 8th and 9th Streets. This new ATM makes the credit union the first financial institution to establish a presence on Avenue C since the 1960s. The opening of the ATM marks two important developments for the Lower East Side: first, it is the beginning of the credit union's expansion plan, which will allow it to continue to serve the growing financial needs of the community; secondly, it demonstrates a revitalized interest and dedication to the economic well-being of the Lower East Side. These developments are sure to contribute to a revitalized community and to benefit the long-term recovery of New York City. I would like to congratulate those whose hard work has contributed to the opening of the new ATM: the dedicated staff and leadership of the Lower East Side People's Federal Credit Union, the Lower East Side People's Mutual Housing Association, New York City Councilwoman Margarita Lopez, the Co-op Network, Citibank, HSBC, and JP Morgan Chase.