Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Deborah Ritter Plotz-Pierce for a lifetime of educating and inspiring New York City students. A group of her most dedicated fans, students in her sixth grade class of 1963-64, will be gathering on Sunday, October 7th to thank her for the significant role she played in shaping their lives. In the words of one of her students, she sparked the imagination of her students to ``achieve, accomplish, reach and claim their place in the American Dream.'' After graduating from Brooklyn College, Deborah Plotz-Pierce began a career that would impact the lives of countless students. From 1958 to 1965, she worked at PS 213 in the East New York section of Brooklyn, where she was assigned to work with gifted and talented students and their parents. After marrying Milton Plotz-Pierce and having her first child, she would begin a battle that would impact the lives of many women. After falling victim to the rules that governed pregnant New York City female teachers at that time, she filed a sexual discrimination complaint against the Board of Education. Over the course of the next four years, Mrs. Plotz-Pierce's case ascended to the Court of Appeals, whose decision led to the amendment of the New York City Maternity By-Laws to reflect greater gender equity. Her long- fought battle for equality in the system surely made a tangible and vital difference in the lives of a generation of New York City teachers. After having her second child, she returned to the classroom, where she remained until her retirement in 1991. In 1992, Mrs. Plotz-Pierce was invited to join the teaching faculties of Touro College and the Education Department of City College. During the next seven years, she trained and mentored new teachers for the New York City Board of Education, passing her years of knowledge and experience on to the next generation. Throughout a lifetime of learning, teaching, and mentoring, Deborah Ritter Plotz-Pierce has provided such inspiration to her students that they gather after 35 years to celebrate and thank her. She is truly a model educator, and I join her students in thanking her for a lifetime of dedication to the students of New York City.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor New York's School for Strings on its 30th Anniversary. The School for Strings, which annually trains approximately 300 students and thirty teachers of violin, cello, and piano, is one of the oldest and most distinguished Suzuki programs in the United States. The school's founder and director, Miss Louise Behrend, was one of the first musicians and teachers to bring the Suzuki approach to the United States, and the success of the program today is evidence of her persistence and the school's excellence. In its first thirty years, the School for Strings has enriched the lives of over one thousand families, teaching many the skills needed to earn placement in some of the finest graduate programs and orchestras in the country. Former School for Strings students can be heard in the orchestras of the Metropolitan Opera, the Boston Symphony, the Chicago Symphony, and numerous other world-class groups, and at the music conservations of such distinguished schools as Julliard, Eastman, Curtis, Peabody, and Oberlin. Equally prominent is the school's Teacher Training Program, which has graduated more than 400 qualified Suzuki teachers who bring their knowledge of music to many eager mind around the country. The School for Strings has also added music into the lives of many underprivileged children through its Start-Up Program. The Start-Up Program pairs children with SFS teacher trainees at reduced rates. After three years, many of the students continue the Suzuki Program with scholarship assistance for the school. For the past five years, the School for Strings has offered an after-school Suzuki program at PS 116 with lessons three times a week in violin and cello for elementary school-age students. The School for Strings, in its first 30 years, has brought to many the lifelong gift of being able to make music, and the accompanying discipline, concentration, and intellectual stimulation. These fortunate students will be tomorrow's orchestra musicians, talented amateurs and music lovers. On June 16th, 2001, twelve hundred of these former students gathered to fill Carnegie Hall with music, a celebration of the tremendous contribution the school has made to New York City and communities around the country. Congratulations to the School for Strings on 30 years of musical excellence, and I look forward to 30 more years of beautiful music!

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rangel amendment to the Fiscal Year 2002 VA-HUD Appropriations bill which would eliminate funding used to implement the community service requirement for residents of public housing. The community service requirement amounts to nothing more than an attack on those who are poor. Granted, residents of public housing do receive a benefit from the government--a benefit Congress began providing almost a century ago, because it understood that despite their hard-work, parents could not meet the basic needs of their families. But instead of proactively addressing the factors that cause people to need public housing in the first place--lack of jobs, low wages, poor education--and helping them to escape the vicious cycle of poverty, we just add to their hardships and label them as undeserving. With these community service requirements, we're essentially saying to them, ``Earn your keep or else.'' If we followed this logic and made every American earn their keep, then we would demand CEO's of nuclear power companies, who receive millions of dollars from the government to subsidize their liability insurance--far more than the meager cost of a public housing unit--to hand out sandwiches at the church soup kitchen. We would demand heads of pharmaceutical companies who, year after year, get billions of dollars in tax breaks, to be candy stripers at the local hospital. But do we demand those things? Of course not. Because those are the people who donate to our campaign war chests. If we followed this logic, we would demand the suburban couple, who got a tax break when they bought their first home, to scrub graffiti off the wall at the subway station. We would demand the farmer, who received a subsidy when his crops were damaged in last summer's drought, to pick up litter along the highway. But do we demand those things? Of course not. Because those people aren't poor. And in Congress, we only like to make things difficult for those who are poor. For the last decade, every time that poverty issues come before the House, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, proclaim the words, ``personal responsibility.'' I challenge my colleagues to hold themselves to that same standard. Take responsibility for your own actions. Admit that provisions like this are only intended to demonize those who are poor. Don't hide behind the falsehood that this community service requirement will somehow alleviate the problems of those living in public housing. Acknowledge that your failure to offer serious solutions has only exacerbated their problems. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Rangel amendment and encourage them to support initiatives that will actually improve the situation of those struggling to make ends meet.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote 305. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' I ask unanimous consent that this be noted at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Manhattan's Gouverneur Hospital on the occasion of its 116th anniversary. Since opening its doors to the Lower East Side community in 1885, Gouverneur Hospital has been committed to providing dependable high quality health care at an affordable price. From excellent emergency services to quality long-term care, Gouverneur Hospital has been there for its neighbors time and time again throughout the past century. An excellent medical facility and a haven for the community, the Hospital and its staff provide patients with efficient, thoughtful and affordable care. On September 12th, 2001, Gouverneur Hospital will be holding a fundralsing event in honor of its 116th year of service. I am pleased to offer my congratulations to Gouverneur Hospital on this occasion. The money raised at this function will enable the hospital to better meet the needs of the community, by expanding its nursing facilities, acquiring a mobile medical van, and increasing its services to the Chinese community. I also commend the recipients of the Gouverneur Hospital Community Service Award for their invaluable contributions to the Gouverneur Hospital community. For the services they have provided to the Lower East Side and their dedication to the well-being of the community, I offer my sincere congratulations to Gouverneur Hospital for 116 years of outstanding service.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago this House by a party- line vote adopted the Norwood amendment which caps punitive damages at $1.5 million and caps noneconomic damages at $1.5 million. This amendment will take both noneconomic damages, pain and suffering, loss of a limb, and say that a child who lost a limb should be compensated at only $250,000, and punitive damages should be compensated at only $250,000. If this amendment passes, both amendments will be in place and the bill will totally contradict itself, because in one place it will say $1.5 million and in the other place, $250,000. The attempt by the Republican majority is to kill this bill through poison pill amendments. They have done two contradictory amendments. Secondly, let me point out that by capping punitive damages at $250,000, the purpose of punitive damages is to deter willful, grossly negligent misconduct. We know of companies that have calculated that they will let people die, they will put unsafe things in their cars or other things, because it is cheaper to pay the damages than to change what they are doing. Punitive damages are designed to stop that. By limiting punitive damages to $250,000, you will get HMOs that will calculate that it is cheaper to deny medical care, cheaper to pay the economic damages, cheaper to pay the $250,000 limited punitive damages, no matter how willful, how grossly negligent, how deceitful, how willful they may be. It is cheaper to kill people and save money, because we have removed the one deterrent the law has. This is an amendment that should never be passed. But, of course, it does not really matter, since we already killed the bill, which will never pass the Senate, by putting in the Norwood amendment. But we should not set the precedent of saying to large corporations, calculate the cost benefit. Do things that may kill or maim people if it is cheaper for your bottom line.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with my colleagues Representative Conyers and Representative Watt, to fondly remember Prof. Lawrence P. King who passed away on April 1, after a long and courageous struggle with cancer. Prof. King was the most widely renowned bankruptcy scholar of our time, and had served as an invaluable advisor to Congress and the Courts regarding Bankruptcy Law. For years, Prof. King generously gave of his time through his involvement with the National Bankruptcy Conference, which has served as the leading non-partisan adviser on the nation's bankruptcy laws since the 1930's. Prof. King has frequently testified on the bankruptcy laws, and was particularly valuable in offering advice in connection with the seminal Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. As a result of his tireless assistance, it is no understatement to say that Prof. King has had as significant an impact on our bankruptcy laws--which are the envy of the world--as any other individual. I first came into contact with Prof. King when I became the Ranking Democratic Member of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. Prof. King's knowledge of the law, compassion for the common man, and extraordinary sense of humor continued to be a tremendous help to the work of the committee especially during the very challenging struggles over the past few years to maintain the integrity of the Code. He both lived and taught in the Eighth Congressional District of New York, a fact about which I remain especially proud. My colleague, the distinguished Ranking Member from Michigan, met Prof. King while still a student at Wayne State School of Law, and like many other lawyers, whether starting out or seasoned, was touched by Prof. King's personal and professional greatness. Time and space do not permit me to recite all of Prof. King's accomplishments, but a few highlights deserve notice. He taught at New York University School of Law from 1959 until his death. For the last 22 years, he was the Charles Seligson Professor of Law. He also served as a member of the Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules; as a consultant to the Commission on Bankruptcy Laws of the United States, which produced what ultimately became the 1978 Bankruptcy Code; as a Senior Advisor to the National Bankruptcy Review Commission, established by Congress as part of the Bankruptcy Act of 1994; and, perhaps most importantly, as the editor-in-chief of the authoritative treatise ``Collier on Bankruptcy.'' In addition to serving as a member of the National Bankruptcy Conference, Prof. King has been honored as a fellow of the American College of Bankruptcy, and had received the College's Distinguished Service Award and the Law School's Alumni Achievement Award. He was the founder and driving force behind the NYU Workshop on Bankruptcy and Business Reorganization which, for 26 years, has trained attorneys in the field of bankruptcy and insolvency law, keeping experienced practitioners up to date with the latest developments in the Prof. King's remarkable professional achievements and intellect are only part of the story. He understood the ethical and moral underpinnings of the fresh start and the rehabilitation of debtors. Everything he did was infused with his personal compassion and ethical standards. In his final speech to the American College of Bankruptcy, just two days before his death, Prof. King made an impassioned plea for the preservation of the fresh start and the coherence, fairness and balance of the current Code. The Code, a model of fairness, is in peril right now. Prof. King, who did so much to build the system we have now, who contributed so much to bankruptcy scholarship, articulated the many concerns with the pending legislation better than anyone. I can think of no more fitting tribute than to commend his final comments to the attention of my colleagues in the hope that they will help us to remember this great man and take heed and work for fair and balanced legislation. Remarks by Prof. Lawrence King to the American College of Bankruptcy I appreciate very much the honor of being asked to deliver the keynote address at this induction ceremony, which itself is a very auspicious occasion. It marks with emphasis the regard in which each of your peers hold you all and you are entitled to be very proud of this accomplishment. Of course, as a member of the College, I agree with everything I just said. In considering what the focus of my remarks should be, the first thought was something having to do with the philosophy of the bankruptcy law. But that would be too short of a speech because, after all, that philosophy could be summed up as granting a new financial life to a financially distressed debtor and providing for an equitable distribution of the debtor's nonexempt assets among the debtor's unsecured creditors. At least that was the philosophy until the advent of the 105th, 106th and the current 107th Congresses. It seems that today's philosophy is to damn the poor and struggling in order to pay the rich, who will not get paid anyway. So it is not worth heaping further ridicule on these past Congresses, the members are beyond caring, having pocketed the largess offered them and gone home to count what is in their campaign coffers. So, on to another theme. Particularly as a member of the College, although not by virtue of that fact alone, we all have responsibilities to our profession and to our community, however that may be defined. Over a number of years of long and hard work, we have achieved a modicum of success and a time comes when some of our efforts should be used to return some good to the communities from which we come. Naturally, as all good sayings go, that is easier to state than to accomplish. Nevertheless, I want to plant some ideas by way of example. When I was in law school, I decided that my careers should encompass three aspects. I wanted to practice law in order to help people with their problems, people being defined to include all legal entities. I wanted to teach law in order to educate others on how to help people through the practice of law as well as to help fashion the law by research and writing. And, thirdly, I wanted to be a judge in order to help make and interpret the law. Those were pretty lofty dreams, perhaps subject even to a charge of naivete. Interestingly, as I reminisce, it seems to me that I did accomplish two of those desires, that is, the actual working at them. Whether or not it was of help to others is not for me to say. I have found, however, that within my work in whichever capacity, I have been able to accomplish all of my goals. That has occurred because throughout my career, I was involved in, let's say, As I was thinking about this part of my speech, I thought of saying to you that there were two of such activities that highlighted my career in the sense of the personal enjoyment and satisfaction that I got out of them. But, as I thought of that notion, I concluded that I could say the same thing with regard to everything I have done and such joy and satisfaction was not limited to a mere two or three endeavors. But a brief review of two will serve my purpose tonight. For about 22 years, in addition to full time teaching, part time practicing as counsel to a firm, and serving as associate dean of the law school, I was the first associate reporter, then reporter, and then a member of the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules of the Judicial Conference of the U.S. This was not totally fun, but overall, it was quite an interesting challenge. One incident, that one would think is unrelated to that work, involved a partial shredding of both of my trousers' legs, starting at the lower thigh, and appearing with cloth flapping before a Congressional committee to testify. The reason for the shredding was a mind bending state of frustration in listening and having to accede to suggestions to change the Chapter X Rules being made by members of the Standing Committee on Practice and Procedure, that is, the oversight committee which had no one on it who knew a whit about bankruptcy, and Chapter X in particular. During the discussion, my hands were under the table and basically, subconsciously, were clutching my pants legs and, at one point of extreme aggravation, they pulled back, tearing the pants. Another extracurricular activity that took a great deal of time, and, in looking back, I do not quite understand where the time came from, was on the legislative front. I first got involved in that through the legislation committee of the National Bankruptcy Conference and the first excursion in drafting legislation for congress and testifying with respect to it was the 1970 Nondischargeability Amendments, which gave the bankruptcy court jurisdiction to determine the effect of a discharge. An interesting aspect of that task was working with the National Association of Referees in Bankruptcy to come up with a joint bill and, at each turn, having members of the House subcommittee complain that the draft was not strong enough to prohibit further abuses of the discharge system by consumer credit companies. One of the most interesting days was when I received a call from Senator Quentin Burdick of North Dakota asking me to come to his office. I was there very quickly. He ushered me into his office, told me to put my feet on the desk, offered me a shot of bourbon (9 a.m.), and he started talking. He had gotten interested in the bankruptcy jurisdiction of the referee in bankruptcy and wondered out loud whether it made sense to create a commission to study the bankruptcy laws with a view to updating them. I, of course, was in 100 [percent] ecstatic agreement, and, from that moment, the 1970 Commission was born not without some problems, but that is a story for another day. In the mid-1970s, I was called to the House subcommittee, which was considering amending Chapter IX of the former [Bankruptcy] Act, the municipality chapter, because of the New York City financial crisis. At first, all I was asked to conduct [was] an afternoon's seminar for the members of the subcommittee and their staffs on the topic of executory contracts under the Bankruptcy Act. This was becoming a big issue in the legislation because of the power of the city's labor unions and their bargaining agreements. But, at the conclusion, the chairman of the subcommittee, Congressman Don Edwards, asked me to show up the next morning at the start of the markup of the Chapter IX bill. Now, no one can speak at a markup session except the members and their staff, so I had to remain silent. At the markup, Congressman Butler, the ranking minority member, had a list of about 50 amendments to the proffered bill which were being read, one by one, by his minority counsel, Ken Klee, and then voted upon. As an amendment was read, Don Edwards looked in my direction and I quickly realized he was seeking a reaction to the amendment from me by way of a nod or shake of the head. And I complied. After a while, Congressman Butler asked for a recess and he came over to me, asking, ``Am I seeing right? Are you reacting to my amendments as they are read without even having seen them before?'' I replied in the affirmative, and he then asked if I would study the remainder of them overnight and meet with him the next morning to offer my reaction. The next day I showed him the lists that I had made of the amendments: in one group I placed the ones I agreed with; in the next group I placed the ones I disagreed with; and in the third group, I placed the ones I did not take a position on because I believed them to be purely political, which was within his expertise and not mine. At the markup session, Butler offered to Edwards the group one amendments with the statement that they had passed muster with the NYU law school. He did not offer group two, and the discussion was limited to Group 3. The markup continued for several days although it was serially announced that it would conclude at the end of that days' session. That did not happen. In the morning, I would check out of my hotel and, in the evening, I would check back in. During the 1970s and '80s, I spent a fair amount of time testifying before Congressional committees and subcommittees, which was very time consuming and, also, fairly expensive. Congress invites you to work for it, but it does not offer to pay, even expenses. In addition, I did a fair amount of continuing education work all over the country, on behalf of state and local bar associations and other suppliers of such programs. I considered appearing on these programs to be part of my job as a teacher, whether I received any compensation (which I did not) for the work. I now think appearing on such programs is more than a teacher's job. I believe that it is incumbent on all of us, practitioners and judges alike, to participate in these programs, if we have something to offer. Judges are a bit problematic because of their position and having to decide issues but, with care as to the type of participation, they can share their gathered wisdom with the bar and public generally. Another area in which lawyers, particularly, can serve beyond their everyday role is through their local bar associations. Active membership should be considered a must. There are many things the local bar can do in a very constructive manner. Very important is its ability to present its views to legislatures regarding bankruptcy and related legislation. Either through bar association work or on an independent basis, pro bono work is of utmost importance, particularly in view of the new legislation. The costs to debtors filing for bankruptcy go up and up and up and no one in Washington seems to understand that the poor are being asked to support the system. Help is needed all over the country. Go to your local courts and volunteer to serve. Create formal programs in your district to help the unfortunate. I know there are established programs in some parts of the country. Get involved in them. Give something back. That is the rallying cry. Some have suggested programs to get lawyers and judges into the classrooms around the country. I have not been enamored of that idea. I do not believe you can pick someone out of his or her office or from the bench and say, here, teach, even if that individual has volunteered with enthusiasm to do so. Not everyone can be an effective teacher. It takes a good deal more than merely standing in front of a group and talking. Again, that is a separate subject for a talk, and I will not belabor it here. But there is a lot out there that can be done. Legislative work is always timely. Keep in touch with your members of Congress. If you are not known, find someone in your firm, or roster of friends or clients who is. Include Representatives and Senators. If you have a string to the White House, use it and turn it into a rope. Plan in advance. Share your expertise by writing sensible articles. The key word is sensible. Participate in bar association functions. Be active. Volunteer to do work. Get involved in pro bono work. You will get a lot of satisfaction in helping people. In whatever form you wish to express yourself, remember, give something back.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would answer two things that were said, one by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) when the gentleman stated that this did not speak at all about cloning, it only spoke about stem cell research. The point is that it may very well be true that once stem cell research is exploited and we know how to cure diseases or give people back the use of their arms and legs through stem cells, it may very well be true that that can only be done by the use of cloned stem cells in order to get around the rejection by the patient of stem cells from somebody else. It may be necessary to use the patient's own cloned stem cells. The second point is in answer to what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) said. The point is, we do not know a lot of things. We do not know exactly what scientific research will show. We do not know exactly what adult stem cells can do, what embryonic stem cells can do, or cloned stem cells can do. That is why it is a sentence of death to millions of Americans, to ban medical research which is what my colleagues are trying to do with this bill.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman says that this bill, the distinction between those of us who support the Greenwood bill or support the Weldon bill is a matter of values. I agree. Some of us believe that a clump of cells not implanted in a woman's uterus, and Senator Hatch agrees, do not have the same moral right and value as a person who is suffering from a disease; that it is our right and our duty to cure human diseases, to prolong human life. We value life. A human being is not simply a clump of cells. At some point, that clump of cells may develop into a fetus and a human being; but the clump of cells at the beginning does not have the same moral value as a person. If one believes that, they should vote with us. If they do not, then they probably will not.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. We all agree that the cloning of human beings should be banned. The cloning of individual cells is a different matter. We know that stem cells have the potential to cure many diseases, to save millions of lives, to enable the paralyzed to walk and feel again, potentially even to enable the maimed to grow new arms and legs. We also know that nuclear cell transfer, cloning of individual cells, may be the best or only way to allow stem cell therapy to work to cure diseases, because by using stem cells produced by cloning one of the patient's own cells, we can avoid the immunological rejection of the stem cells used to treat the disease. Why should we prohibit, as this bill does, the cloning of cells? Why should we prohibit the research to lead to these kinds of cures? Only because of the belief that a blastocyst, a clump of cells not yet even an embryo, with no nerves, no feelings, no brain, no heart, is entitled to the same rights and protections as a human being; that a blastocyst is a human being and cannot be destroyed, even if doing so would save the life of a 40-year-old woman with Alzheimer's disease. I respect that point of view, but I do not share it. A clump of cells is not yet a person. It does not have feelings or sensations. If it is not implanted, if it is not implanted in a woman's uterus, it will never become a person. Yes, this clump of cells, like the sperm and the egg, contains a seed of life; but it is not yet a person. To anyone wrestling with this issue, I would point them to the comments of the distinguished senior Senator from Utah who is very much against choice and abortion, who has come out in strong support of stem cell research because he recognizes that a blastocyst not implanted in a woman's uterus is very different than an embryo that will develop into a person. If one is pro-choice, one cannot believe a blastocyst is a human being. If they did, they would not be for choice. If one is anti- choice, one may believe, with Senators Hatch and Strom Thurmond, what I said a moment ago, that a clump of cells in a petri dish is not the same as an embryo in a woman. But as a society we have already made this decision. We permit abortion. We permit in vitro fertilization, which creates nine or 10 embryos, of which all but one will be destroyed. We must not say to millions of sick or injured human beings, go ahead and die, stay paralyzed, because we believe the blastocyst, the clump of cells, is more important than you are. Let us not go down in history with those bodies in the past who have tried to stop scientific research, to stop medical progress. Let us not be in a position of saying to Galileo, the sun goes around the world and not vice versa. That is what this bill does. It is easier to prevent a human being from being cloned, to put people in jail if they try to do that. It is not a slippery slope. One cannot police the hundreds and thousands of biological labs which can produce clones of cells. Much easier to police the cloning of human beings. The slippery slope argument does not work. Let us not put a stop to medical progress and to human hope.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, and I want to commend her for her consistent and forceful stand on behalf of this Nation's embattled family farmers. The proposed instruction is very straightforward and should not draw any opposition. The Senate language represents a bipartisan consensus that family farmers and embattled family fishermen who now face a crisis ought to be able to reorganize their debts and continue the work on the land or on the water that their families have pursued for generations. That is what this is all about. The Senate language would expand eligibility for chapter 12 to reflect the current economic realities, not the economic realities of 1986. It increases eligibility from $1.5 million in debt to $3 million in debt. The House bill does not do that. It merely allows the amounts to be adjusted in the future, but does not take into account 15 years of inflation. Like the House bill, the Senate provision would make chapter 12 permanent. Unlike the House bill, it would recognize for the first time that many family farmers, especially those in distress, do not receive more than 50 percent of their income from farming because one spouse may need to work off the farm to keep the farm afloat. We should not now penalize these people for doing everything in their power to avoid bankruptcy through hard work. The proposed amendment also extends chapter 12 protection to family fishermen for the first time. They too are subject to the stresses of fluctuating commodity prices, and they also have similar problems of large capital investments and significant preseason debts against the coming harvest which characterize family farmers, and for which chapter 12 has been specifically tailored. Chapter 12 is not a bailout, it is merely a way for a family farmer, or as we extend it for a family fisherman, to reorganize debts and stay on the land or on the water. It protects family farmers from being swallowed up by agribusiness or suburbanization, it protects our watersheds and drinking water, and it protects those families and communities who have been the backbone of rural America and of our Nation. Again I commend the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for this motion, and I urge everyone to support it.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which will shave just a tiny bit of the tax cut to the top 1 percent of wealthy people in this country in order to provide more funding for veterans and for other essential needs. But I want to make a larger point in reference to some of what I heard from the other side of the aisle. We are told by the Social Security Task Force that, after 2016, we will have to either raise taxes or cut benefits to pay for these Social Security bonds that will be redeemed then. Well, those will be about $200 billion a year. The tax cut we passed a few days ago will be about $400 billion a year at that time. So do not tell us we cannot keep faith with our senior citizens to redeem our Social Security bonds and pay out the full benefits. It would only cost to do that half the cost of the tax cut you just gave to the richest people in our country, and, in effect, taking away, if you listen to the rhetoric of the Social Security Commission, from all the people that depend on Social Security. It is not difficult. We do not have to raise taxes. We just have to be careful in what we do and not do the tax cut for the richest 1 percent, if we want to redeem all those Social Security bonds and pay all the benefits. We do not have to destroy Social Security in order to save it. We just have to not pass the Republican tax cuts.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will provide an additional 34,000 Section 8 vouchers, 10,000 of which will be reserved for disabled families. In addition, the amendment would add almost $5 million to veterans' extended care facilities. I wish we could offer an amendment for a greater number of new vouchers, because the need is so great. Unfortunately, with such severe cuts to so many important housing programs necessitated by the budget resolution we passed earlier this year, it is difficult to find an offset that would provide the funds necessary to do so. We must focus the scarce resources in this bill on the areas of greatest need. Therefore, the amendment offsets the increase in funds for additional Section 8 vouchers and for the additional funding for veterans' extended care facilities by removing $200 million from the Down Payment Assistance Initiative which is an unauthorized part of the HOME program. By postponing appropriations for this initiative until it is actually authorized and until a number of concerns raised by local mayors regarding the structure of the program have been addressed, we will be able to use these funds immediately on chronically underfunded housing programs. Mr. Chairman, the Down Payment Assistance Initiative is not only unauthorized, no committee hearings have been held on this initiative, it is unclear how the program will be administered, it is unclear that most low-income people would have sufficient income to be able to utilize the program, and, frankly, we should hold hearings and we should properly design and authorize this program, and then we will know how much to appropriate for it. Meanwhile, we can better use these funds on the chronically underfunded existing programs. This bill makes dramatic and alarming cuts to next year's housing budget, yet the need for housing assistance is staggering. By HUD's estimates, there are 5 million low-income families, almost 11 million people, who have worst-case housing needs; five million families who spend more than 50 percent of their income on rent or live in severely substandard housing. None of these 11 million people receive any housing assistance. More importantly, there is not one local jurisdiction in the United States in which a full-time, full-time, minimum wage worker can afford the market rent for a one-bedroom apartment in his or her neighborhood. A study of 70 metropolitan areas showed that someone earning the minimum wage would have to work 100 hours a week to be able to afford the market rent in those areas. What do we say to the working people of this country when they work endless hours, sacrificing time with their families, all in an effort to provide for their families, and they still cannot afford a decent place to live? We must not ignore these needs. The Section 8 voucher program is one of the most effective and cost- efficient means of eliminating worst-case housing needs. 1.5 million families have been able to find affordable housing through the use of Section 8 vouchers. Rental assistance allows families to enter the private housing market and choose where they want to live. By reducing housing costs, these vouchers can free up funds within the budgets of low-income families for necessary expenses such as health and child care. Unfortunately, the Section 8 program is severely underfunded. In New York City alone, there are nearly 200,000 people, 200,000 people, on the Section 8 waiting list. Nationwide, the average wait for those entering the Section 8 program is about 2 years; and in some places people have been on the waiting list for over 10 years. Over the last 3 years, Congress has gradually increased Section 8 vouchers by too low an amount, but it has increased it by 50,000, 60,000, and 79,000 in the last 3 years respectively. But with a national waiting list of Section 8 vouchers being well over 1 million families today, these increases are drops in the bucket. This bill increases the number of Section 8 vouchers by only 34,000. With so many people in need, it is not the time to reverse the progress of the last 3 years. To add only 34,000 vouchers this year is to actually cut the annual increase in vouchers by 46 percent. This amendment will increase the housing certificate fund by $195 million to provide an additional 34,000 Section 8 vouchers, of which 10,000, as I said, will be targeted to the disabled. The remaining $4.8 million dollars in savings created by this amendment will be dedicated to the State Extended Care Facilities Program to finance the construction and renovation of veterans' nursing home and hospital care facilities. I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is a modest action, given the shortage of affordable housing, but it is necessary to help thousands of low-income families, while, at the same time, providing resources to improve home care facilities for our Nation's veterans. By increasing funding for programs targeted at a wide range of people, from those with disabilities, to veterans, to those working to make ends meet at low salaries, this amendment sends a message that all people are deserving of the dignity and stability of a decent home. I urge all my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply troubled by the way this Administration appears to tackle difficult policy questions. I fear a pattern may be developing. The GAO is already investigating Vice President's Cheney's secret meetings with energy executives on federal energy policy. There are questions about this Administration's faith-based office consulting with the Salvation Army about allowing discrimination with federal funds. There are further allegations that the President's Medicare Drug Plan was done in secret consultation only with representatives from the drug companies. Now, the Social Security Commission is looking at only one way to strengthen Social Security--they want to privatize it. This type of one-sided look at policy questions is hurting the Bush Administration. Poll after poll shows that there is a growing concern that the President is too concerned with powerful special interests. His Administration appears to care more about energy companies and drug companies, than about consumers and seniors who need to buy prescription drugs. Well, today, we are offering the President the opportunity to change that perception. Why not balance his one-sided, unbalanced, biased, pro-prviatization Social Security Commission with another Commission to study the other side of the issue? Both Commissions could make recommendations, and Congress and the President could hear from both sides of the debate before making any decisions. This is entirely reasonable, and I hope this amendment is adopted. The new Commission, unlike Bush's current Commission, might be composed of people who have NOT advocated raising the retirement age and cutting benefits. The President should not have any problem filling the seats on this Commission, because most Americans do not support raising the retirement age or cutting benefits. The new Commission might point out many of the views that Bush's Commission might not mention. The new Commission could study the need, feasibility, cost, fairness, and risks involved in privatization. It might conclude, as many of us do, that privatization of Social Security is not necessary, not workable, not cheap, not fair, and not worth the risk. Let me briefly explain these shortfalls. First, privatization is not necessary. The Social Security Trustees predict a system that is solvent for 37 years and may in fact be solvent as far as the eye can see. Second, the Trustees predictions are pessimistic, and have had to be revised every year. Third, the Trustees pessimistic predictions are unreliable because they don't take into account the affect of the predicted long term labor shortage on wages, productivity, unemployment, or immigration policy. It won't work (1) Privatization does not restore solvency to the system--simply diverting 2% of payroll to individual accounts simply makes the funding problem worse. It hastens the insolvency of the system. (2) Privatization plans that claim to restore solvency to Social Security, only do so because they also cut guaranteed benefits, increase the retirement age, or create huge deficits in the non-social security federal budget. Cutting benefits, raising the retirement age, or adding general fund revenues can make the system solvent with or without the private accounts. The Transition Costs Too Much (1) The transition costs to a private system are enormous. Furthermore, $1.3 trillion of the surplus is no longer available to finance the transition because of the tax cut. (2) There are enormous administrative costs to setting up millions of small investment accounts. Why not simply put that money into Social Security directly to make the system more solvent? It is unfair (1) Under privatization the rich will earn more than the poor in their private accounts. Two percent of $70,000 is much more than two percent of $20,000. This will increase the disparity in the system. (2) Privatization hurts women--who generally earn less, live longer, and take time out from the paid workforce to care for children. (3) Privatization (diverting funds to private accounts) may jeopardize existing survivor and disability payments--putting children and those with disabilities at risk. It is either risky or will not produce major gains (1) Investing in the stock market is riskier than investing in bonds. As a result of the risk, the potential for gains is higher, but the potential for losses is higher as well. So, privatization could leave millions in poverty--is that a risk we are willing to take? (2) If you want to minimize the risk of people ending up poor, you could limit their investments in lower risk stocks or mutual funds. Fine, but then the rate of return is smaller, and the accounts are less likely to make up for the cuts in guaranteed benefits needed to set up the accounts. Point of Order

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, in 1935, about 178 Republicans voted against establishing Social Security. One voted for it. In 1964, 30 years later, the Republican party, behind Barry Goldwater, said, ``Let us get rid of Social Security. Let us make it private.'' Thirty years later they are right on schedule again, and they want to destroy Social Security in order to save it. To do this, the Bush administration sets up a biased commission. They have a habit of setting up biased commissions: first, Mr. Cheney's energy task force of oil company executives; and now this task force, composed 100 percent of people who are on record as favoring the partial or full privatization of Social Security. We can have an honest amendment that says, do not implement the report of the Commission because we know it is going to be privatization, because they said so. They told us that. We do not have to wonder about what it is going to be. ``Let us establish a commission to investigate the problem and come up with the solution that they designed before they investigated the problem.'' We are told in 2016 Congress, in order to pay off the Social Security bonds, will either have to raise taxes, cut benefits, or borrow to pay back these bonds. Why? Why did we increase FICA taxes, Social Security taxes in 1983 and cut the benefits in order to build up a trust fund so that it would keep Social Security solvent? Now they tell us those $5 trillion in assets do not matter, they are not real assets. Well, they are real assets to the Social Security system. True, the government is to pay it. It will cost, to pay it, $200 billion a year, starting in 2016. How are we going to pay it? For one thing, the tax cut that we approved a few weeks ago will cost about $400 billion a year starting in 2011, once it is fully phased in. Half of that tax cut would pay for all the bonds on an annual basis. They are only part of the bonds. That is part of the national debt of the United States. They are no different than the bonds that are held by Mitsubishi or the series E bonds held by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). We always pay back those bonds. We are not going to have to raise taxes or cut benefits. If we do, it is a government budget problem, not a Social Security problem. Now we are told the solution is privatize; take a system which guarantees a person a certain benefit, a certain retirement benefit, and tell them they will only get a certain fraction of that benefit, and the rest of it will depend on their luck on the stock market. Maybe they will do well, and maybe they will not. A lot of people will do well, but a lot of people will not do well, and we will recreate the situation we had before Social Security in which some people have good retirements and others are in abject poverty because their investments were foolish or simply unlucky. We are told that the railroad retirement system is going to invest in the stock market, pension funds will invest in the stock market. Sure, the whole system does, not individuals, and that makes all the difference in the world. If the Government decided to buy private stocks and bonds with the Social Security Trust Fund to get greater returns, the Government has a budget problem if those stocks do not pan out. The individuals still are guaranteed by law their Social Security. So the fact that pension funds invest in stocks does not mean we ought to put individuals at risk of the private stock market. We are also told by an operation, by this task force, by others, Chicken Littles, that the sky is falling, we are going to run out of money. Well, the system will have enough money to pay all benefits for the next 37 years, if we believe the trustees; and then it will have a 28 percent shortfall, if we assume that the rate of economic growth of the United States is going to plummet to a rate not seen since the Depression and going to stay there.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, it is not relevant who anyone believes really, in quotes, ``won'' the election in Florida last year to this amendment. This amendment is necessary because we know that people are being deprived of their votes by faulty and inadequate voting equipment, probably in every State and certainly in most States of the Union. Certainly in my State of New York, as well as in Florida. A report by the National Association of Election Commissioners in 1988 said that punchcard voting machines have more than twice the error rate and disqualification of other technologies then in use, and that they ought to be phased out and discarded, in 1988. An MIT study just said about $600 million a year is what is necessary to bring to bear modern technology which will tell the voter who has tried to vote for two candidates he would be disqualified or if he skipped a vote, you have done it, before you leave the voting booth so he can correct it if he wants to. We ought to do that. We ought to make sure our future elections are accurate and fair, regardless of which side of the aisle you are on. I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for his amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lee-Leach amendment. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for introducing this amendment. Mr. Chairman, we have heard about the severity of the AIDS pandemic. It has at this point exceeded in damage to human life the flu pandemic of 1918; and before it is stopped, it probably will exceed the damage to human beings of the Black Death of the 14th century. There are some countries where one out of every four people is already affected. We still do not have a cure. We have some ameliorative treatments, and those treatments are not affordable to people in most of the developing world. It is the greatest single threat that humanity faces today. The amounts of money we are spending on it, frankly, put us to shame when we consider the priorities. Any budget is a set of priorities. The Global AIDS Trust Fund in this budget will get $100 million in this bill; another $100 million in the Labor-HHS bill; bilateral aid from AID adds another $247 million, for a total of $447 million proposed in the United States budget. Mr. Chairman, we are spending about $6 billion a year on missile defense research. Some people think we ought to spend more, some think we ought to spend less. $6 billion for a possible threat; $447 million for an existing mortal threat that is in front of our eyes. The U.N. has estimated that we should be spending 7 to $10 billion a year, the world, not just the United States, seven to 10 times the $1 billion the world is spending on this now. This modest amendment would add $60 million. The total U.S. commitment would go from $447 million to $507 million in a budget of roughly $1.8 trillion. Again, look what we spend money on: $6 billion on missile defense. This money, $60 million, is minimal. It is taken from foreign military aid, mostly to Latin American countries which, frankly, is not all that necessary, I do not know about the great military threats faced by Latin American countries, and from drug initiatives abroad which have not cut down the flow of drugs into this country. The threat of AIDS is a heck of a lot more threatening to us than any drug problem could ever conceivably be. Mr. Chairman, I urge that we adopt this amendment. $60 million is a pittance. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) should have added another zero. It should have been $600 million. But then we would not seriously consider it. But the pittance that is added here is the very, very least we can do so that we can say to our children, we did not ignore the AIDS crisis, the worst crisis to humanity in at least 600 years.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to laud the incredible and enduring community activism of Verna Small. Verna has been active in the Greenwich Village community of New York City for over half a century, however she got her start right here in Washington, D.C. A 1937 graduate of George Washington University, Verna soon began working for the United States Department of Labor, which took her on assignments all across this nation. Thankfully for us New Yorkers she landed in the heart of New York City, Greenwich Village, and immediately made it her home. During her early years in the nation's Capital, Verna grew to love the Potomac River and other waterways, a love that would signal a passion that would last a lifetime. In New York, Verna recognized the beauty and splendor of the Hudson River and its vital relationship to Greenwich Village. She decided to make it part of her life's work to preserve this relationship and save the history of this neighborhood from disappearing at the hands of developers. Throughout the 1960's Verna, along with her comrade in arms Ruth Wittenberg, spearheaded an epic movement that culminated in the astounding creation of the New York City Landmarks Law in 1965 and the designation of the Greenwich Village Historic District in 1969, which remains today the city's largest historic district. Throughout this time Verna founded organizations that stand today to fight for the preservation of our city's neighborhoods, including the Association of Village Homeowners, the Historic Districts Council, the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, and the Federation to Preserve the Greenwich Village Waterfront & Great Port, Inc. In 1964 Verna became a member of Manhattan Community Board 2. During her nearly forty-year tenure on the Community Board, she served as Chair of the Landmarks Committee for ten of those years. In 1994 she received the Elliot Willinsky Award from New York City's Landmarks Preservation Commission. Even today, Verna is fighting hard to preserve the history of the Village during the creation of the Hudson River Park. Amidst all of her community activism, Verna led a full life as a wife, a mother, editor and author. She is truly a dynamic woman who has had a profound impact on those she has touched. Mr. Speaker, I salute Verna Small and all of her accomplishments. I am happy to know her and am in constant awe of her passion and fortitude. It is my hope that she will continue to fight for what she believes in for a long time to come.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of confusion on this point, but the basic question on the facts are simple: Under current law, a church may discriminate on religious or other grounds using its own funds. Under this bill, a church can discriminate on religious grounds, on other grounds, on sexual grounds using its own funds and using government taxpayer funds. And if there are any local or State civil rights laws that say it cannot, this bill says, never mind, we supersede the State or local civil rights laws. This motion to recommit is very simple. It says that with government funds, with taxpayer funds, one may not discriminate and one may not contravene Federal, State or local civil rights laws with government funds. With church funds, the law would be unchanged. One can still do that, but one cannot discriminate, one cannot say no blacks, no women, no Jews, no Catholics, whatever, with government taxpayer funds, period. I hope everybody will vote for, one would assume, this elementary, antidiscrimination civil rights recommit motion.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to myself. Mr. Speaker, churches have a role to play in the provision of social services, but Members should vote for the substitute to make sure that this bill does not establish employment discrimination with public funds, with preemption of State and local civil rights law, to make sure the bill provides offsets for the cost of the bill, to make sure that we protect participants from leadership coercion, and that we do not voucherize $47 billion worth of programs without congressional review.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).