Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the distinguished minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we have been forced by the Republican leadership to consider many of the principle problems with this bill in one substitute amendment. It would have been better to have an open debate on separate amendments, but that might have been proven embarrassing. Therefore, we have this substitute, which does several things. It prohibits employment discrimination and preemption of State and local civil rights laws with Federal funds, it provides offsets for the costs of the bill, it deletes the sweeping new provisions permitting agencies to convert more than $47 billion in government programs into private vouchers without congressional review, and it protects participants from religious coercion. If Members do not believe in employment discrimination and if they support the civil rights laws of their community, they should vote for the substitute. If Members are concerned about the administration having unfettered discretion to turn billions of dollars of social services into vouchers without any congressional review, they should vote for the substitute. If Members think that the charitable deductions established in this bill should be paid for by a slightly lower tax cut to the very wealthy, rather than by raiding the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, they should vote for the substitute. If Members are fiscal conservatives and think tax cuts must be paid for, they should vote for the substitute. If Members believe that the most vulnerable members of our society should be free from religious coercion when they seek help, then they should vote for the substitute. Some Members may want the substitute to do something more or may wish the substitute did not do something that it does. But if Members are concerned that this bill is flawed and want to make their concerns known, they should remember that their choice is between the substitute and the bill. If Members do not vote for the substitute, they should not delude themselves into believing the concerns will be addressed down the road. If the Republican leadership of the House thinks they can muscle this flawed legislation through the House, they will not pause to repair the terrible flaws later. Members should vote for the substitute if they have any of these concerns. I urge my colleagues to do so. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a threat to religious liberty, a threat to the very effective way the Federal, State and local governments have long worked with religious charities, and a threat to this Nation's long commitment to equal rights, nondiscrimination and human dignity. I would like to dispense with a few myths that have been propagated during this debate. First, contrary to what we may have heard, religious charities are not the victims of discrimination; far from it. Religious charities now administer billions of dollars in public funds every year. Catholic Charities, the Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies, the United Jewish Communities and many other church groups have been providing social services partially funded with taxpayer dollars for many, many decades. Myth two: Religious charities must be allowed to discriminate in employment and services using public money in order to do their jobs properly. Why? Why does a Jewish lunch program need to hire only Jews to serve the soup? Why does a Baptist homeless shelter need to hire only Baptists to provide the blankets? I thought that this was a settled issue in our society, but apparently it is not. Let me ask my colleagues, on the road to Jericho, did the good Samaritan ask the wounded traveler whether he was of a certain faith or whether he was gay or whether he was of the proper race? If the answer is no, then why would we think it necessary for churches to do this now, with public funds? We are told that current law already allows such discrimination. Yes, it does, but only with church funds. But this bill is different. This bill allows that discrimination not just with church money but with public money in purely secular activities or what we are told are purely secular activities. That is very new and very, very wrong. Myth three: This bill preserves State laws. Not true. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) made clear in the markup in the committee that it does not. The bill allows broad religious discrimination and nullifies the laws of 12 States and more than 100 localities to the contrary. Do not be fooled by the argument that this applies only to lesbian and gay rights, important though they are. This applies to all local antidiscrimination laws, whether they protect women or minorities or single mothers or whatever local communities may have committed to take a stand on. That is an important difference from past charitable choice legislation, which specifically said that State and local laws would be preserved. This is different. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because it forces Members who have genuine concerns about some very troublesome elements of the bill to raise all those concerns in a single substitute motion. This rule permits not a single amendment to this bill to be heard on the floor. We will not be allowed to have clear votes on any of these questions, so the majority can shield from scrutiny the fiscal irresponsibility contained in this bill, the legislative green light in this bill for invidious discrimination, the nullification of State and local antidiscrimination laws contained in this bill. Their effort to allow the administration to completely rewrite the billions of dollars of social service programs into vouchers, without any legislative investigation into what we are talking about there, without congressional consideration, and allowing religious groups to subject the most vulnerable in our society to religious pressure and proselytizing using Federal dollars. Why are they so afraid of open and unstrained debate on this bill that makes such radical changes to our laws regarding religious freedom and the provision of social services? Why are they afraid to have clean up or down votes on these various issues? Does it have anything to do with the fear that those radical proposals considered one by one might not pass this body? Does it have anything to do with the fact that they are having trouble holding their own Members in line to vote for legalizing religious discrimination with taxpayer dollars? This is compassion? This is what the majority thinks of our first freedom? This is what the Republican leadership and the compassionate conservative in the White House think of the merits of this proposal, that they will not permit amendments to be introduced on the floor and considered and voted on? This House should have the chance to look carefully at each of these issues within this bill separately. We should have the chance to vote on these issues separately. We should have the chance to consider separately the several radical changes this bill would make in the very good and satisfactory way that religious organizations have been competing for and winning and using Federal funds for providing social services for the last 6 or 7 decades.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, someone once said that a fanatic is someone who redoubles his effort when he has forgotten his purpose. I think there are some aspects of our drug laws can be characterized as fanatic. We use morphine for pain, we prescribe it. It is a controlled substance. I do not understand why marijuana, a controlled substance, should not be prescribable if a doctor feels that that drug is useful to someone who has cancer or AIDS or whatever. It is up to the doctors, it is not up to the politicians here in Congress, or it ought to be. Frankly, yes, George Soros has funded these referenda. In every referendum they have had, the people have spoken. Yes, the Federal law is supreme. We do not have to contest that. These laws cannot stand up against Federal law, but they are doing it through the States because this Congress and the President and the former President were not sensitive to the cries for help from desperately sick people and desperately pained people and their families. We ought to yield to those cries. This amendment simply says, let them have the relief from the pain. Let them do it. It has nothing to do with legalization, nothing to do with decriminalization. Those are other issues. But if a controlled substance is useful for pain, and, yes, we do not have decent studies on it because the DEA prohibited those studies, let us yield and help desperately sick people.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Frankly, I am disappointed that this amendment is even necessary. It should be obvious that the United States would support all efforts to provide affordable medicine to the people of developing nations who are suffering with AIDS. It should be a given that when a nation like Brazil develops an effective program to address the AIDS crisis threatening its people that the United States would stand up and salute its good work. The developing world in particular has been devastated by the AIDS epidemic, with millions of people affected and millions of people dying and a generation of orphaned children left behind. The manufacturing of affordable generic drugs is a crucial element in finally getting control of this terrible disease. We should be encouraging more nations to do that, rather than threatening them with lawsuits at the World Trade Organization to protect the bottom line of multibillion dollar drug companies. It is unconscionable that we would put money over lives. It was only because of the public pressure, led in large part by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), and so many others in this body, that the United States finally dropped its lawsuit. But there is no assurance that the big drug companies will not pour their money into lobbying the United States Government to bring another lawsuit like it. That is why we need this amendment today. With this amendment we would prevent the United States from shamefully pursuing commercial interests before the health and well-being of millions of people affected with this terrible disease. It would encourage developing nations to responsibly address the AIDS crisis and bring lifesaving treatment to their citizens. The role of this Nation for several years in preventing people in southern Africa from having access to lifesaving drugs is shameful. I thank God that we are no longer doing that. This amendment will ensure that we will not even think about doing it again in the future. It is a very important amendment, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this misguided constitutional amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against it. We are faced today with a choice that will be, for many Members of this body, a difficult one. The choice, put simply, is between a symbol, a revered symbol, and the fundamental values it represents. The flag of the United States is a symbol. It is a symbol that has the power to move people deeply. When we see the picture of the flag being raised by the Marines over Mt. Suribachi or when we see it draped over a casket or when we see it being carried in the streets as a symbol of the fight for social justice, as it was by Dr. King and so many other courageous individuals over the years who fought to ensure that America would one day live up to its promise, it is hard not to be moved. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as we stand here today debating what would be the very first amendment to the Bill of Rights, I feel humbled to look at the flag hanging behind you in this Chamber and know that a very heavy responsibility weighs on every Member of this House. We have heard and will hear many moving arguments about the sacrifices made for the flag, of the people who died for the flag, the soldiers, of the importance of the flag to so many Americans. But the real significance of the flag is those important values, the fundamental freedoms, and the way of life it represents. That is why so many have sacrificed so much. Not for the peace of colored cloth, but for those values. And we dishonor their sacrifice, we ensure that those sacrifices were made in vain if we now start down the road to undermine the freedoms the flag represents, allegedly to protect the flag. Let us not revere the symbol over what it represents. Let us not render our flag a hollow symbol. It has been said that the sin of idolatry is the sin of elevating the symbol over the substance. The substance we are talking about is liberty and freedom of expression. It is that that we must protect, and it is that which this amendment jeopardizes. Mr. Speaker, veterans, General Colin Powell, religious leaders, and many other Americans understand how important our freedom of expression really is, even if that expression is sometimes politically unpopular, even if it may offend people, even if it makes people angry, even if it costs votes. If those who came before us were willing to place their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for those freedoms, I think we can risk some votes to secure their continuance. We have debated this amendment many times. We all know the arguments. It might be easy to trivialize the question we have debated so many times, but this is serious business because we are talking about amending the first amendment, the queen of the amendments that have protected our freedoms since the beginning of our Nation. If any Member has any doubts about whether this amendment is about protecting the flag or is really about constraining freedom of expression, they should ask themselves, what is the difference between burning an old tattered flag, which U.S. law and the American Legion tell us is the appropriate, respectful way to dispose of a flag, and burning it at a protest rally? There is only one difference, and that is the opinion, the political opinion, the message being conveyed, and we are criminalizing the message. We have all seen, I would assume everyone in this Chamber has watched movies over the years, and we have seen movies in which actors play enemy soldiers, Nazi soldiers, Chinese Communist soldiers in Korea; and during that movie they desecrate the American flag, they tear it to bits or trample upon it or spit upon it or burn it. No one suggests we ought to arrest the actors. No one suggests the actors have committed a crime because they are playing a role. The only crime this amendment seeks to create is not for those actors to destroy the flag in some future movie, it is for someone to burn the flag or otherwise disrespect it in the course of a political protest. That is why the Supreme Court, quite rightly, said we cannot make that illegal because it is the core political speech that we would be making illegal. It is not the flag at issue; it is the opinion being expressed. Do my colleagues know current Federal law makes it a crime to use the flag in advertising, including political advertising? That is current law because Congress thought it was disrespectful to use the flag in advertisements. If this amendment passes, that law will be enforceable. Now it is not because it is unconstitutional. Yet I would venture to say that most Members of this Congress have violated that law by using the flag in political ads. Is it the intent of the sponsors to crack down on that form of flag desecration? Mr. Speaker, our freedoms are more important than any one individual who wants to make a point by burning a flag. Our country has survived those few individuals who want to burn the flag. Our country will rise above it in the future. The real damage to the flag is that too many people may be willing to desecrate our Bill of Rights to make a political point. That is something that will be very hard for this Nation to rise above, and that is why this amendment must be defeated.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the DeGette Amendment to strike the ban on abortion funding for women in federal prison. This ban is cruel, unnecessary, and unwarranted. Mr. Chairman, a woman's sentence should not include forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term. Most women in prison are poor, have little or no access to outside financial help, and earn extremely low wages from prison jobs. Inmates in general work 40 hours a week and earn between 12 to 40 cents per hour. They totally depend on the health services they receive from their institutions. Most female prisoners are unable to finance their own abortions, and, therefore, are in effect denied their constitutional right to an abortion. Earning the maximum rate of wages, a female prisoner would need to work 40 hours a week for 12 and \1/2\ weeks just to be able to afford the lowest cost of a first trimester abortion ($200), but by that time she is no longer in the first trimester and, therefore, the cost of the abortion would be higher. So she would need to work even more to pay for the higher cost and more dangerous abortion. However, she will never make enough money in prison to pay for a timely, safe abortion even if she saves every penny she earns from the moment of conception. Why? Because the cost of later and later term abortions (from $200 to $700 to $1200) increases faster than her ability to earn money. So the legislation essentially bans abortion services for women in prison. Remember, many women prisoners are victims of physical or sexual abuse and are pregnant before entering prison. In addition, they will almost certainly be forced to give up their children at birth. Why should we add to their anguish by denying them access to reproductive services? Even worse, prison health services are inadequate for pregnant women. A 1999 report by Amnesty International USA revealed that gynecological services for women in prisons are inadequate and of poor quality. So, not only are we forcing women to carry pregnancies to term, but we are forcing them to do so in an environment where medical conditions are notoriously bad. We, therefore, increase the risk of late-term miscarriages and other potentially life threatening complications. That is dangerous and unnecessary. Furthermore, we ought to keep this debate in perspective. This ban on abortions does not stop thousands of abortions from taking place, rather it places an unconstitutional burden on a few women facing a difficult situation. Statistics show that there are approximately 10,448 women in federal prison, that only 4 had abortions in FY 1998 and only 2 had abortions in FY 1999. There were only 56 births in FY 1998, and 24 births in FY 1999. So this is a very small group of people. I know full well that the authors of this ban would take away the right to choose from all American women if they could, but since they are prevented from doing so by the Supreme Court (and the popular will of the American people who overwhelmingly support choice) they have instead targeted their restrictions on women in prison. Women in prison, who are perhaps the least likely to be able to object. Well watch out America. After they have denied reproductive health services to all women in prison, all federal employees, all women in the armed forces, and all women on public assistance, then they will once again try to ban all abortions in the United States. And they won't stop there, we know that many anti-choice forces want to eliminate contraceptives as well. It is a slippery slope that denies the realities of today, punishes women, and threatens their health and safety. This radical agenda must be stopped now. I urge my colleagues to support the DeGette amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the reopening of the newly renovated and recently renamed Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center located in New York City. The stated mission of the Center is to provide a home for the birth, nurture and celebration of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender organizations, institutions and culture. For nearly two decades the Center has successfully fulfilled that mission by providing groups and individuals a safe space in which to achieve their fullest potential. The newly renovated space at 208 West 13th Street in Manhattan, will be a permanent home for the local LGBT community, fostering creativity, compassion, and activism. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center has long been a beacon of hope for many in the community, serving thousands upon thousands of residents from all walks of life and from every corner of the world. The Center is not only a host to a wide variety of civic, athletic, health, and cultural groups, but it also provides an array of its own programming. Programs such as Project Connect, CenterBridge, Center Kids, the Pat Parker/Vito Russo Center Library, and the National Museum and Archive of Lesbian and Gay History add to the expansive fabric that binds New York's LGBT Community. Mr. Speaker, I salute The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center in its ongoing effort to better enrich the LGBT Community and society as a whole. I am eminently proud to represent such a living landmark. I urge my colleagues to join me in wishing them well and all the hope for the future in their new spectacular facility.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my pride, and that of New York, that on June 21, 2001, Ellen V. Futter, President of the world- renowned American Museum of Natural History, was awarded NASA's prestigious Public Service Medal by NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin. She was presented this medal in recognition of her leadership in advancing the highest quality science education. Through Ms. Futter's leadership, the American Museum of Natural History is bringing NASA's cutting-edge science to children and families of New York, the nation, and the world through the Rose Center for Earth and Space and the NASA-sponsored National Center for Science Literacy and Education Technology. Her achievements rest on a keen appreciation of the importance of scientific literacy in the 21st century and a unique vision for bridging the gap between science and the public. With the leadership of Congress, the American Museum of Natural History and NASA have forged a productive scientific and educational partnership that advances their shared goals of advancing science and scientific literacy nationwide. The National Center for Science Literacy, Education, and Technology was conceived by the Museum; approved, advanced, and supported by Congress; and sponsored by NASA. It is a model partnership of which we can all be proud. Founded in 1869, the American Museum of Natural History is one of the nation's preeminent science and education institutions. Throughout its history, its efforts have been directed to its twin missions: to examine critical scientific issues and increase public knowledge about them. Its rich scientific legacy includes an irreplaceable record of life on Earth in collections of some 32 million natural specimens and cultural artifacts. The Museum's power to interpret wide-ranging scientific discoveries and convey them imaginatively has inspired generations of visitors and educated millions about the marvels of the natural world and the vitality of human cultures. I congratulate Ellen Futter, the American Museum of Natural History, Daniel Goldin and NASA on their remarkable accomplishments.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, we are here to pass this resolution honoring John Downing, Brian Fahey and Harry Ford, who lost their lives on Father's Day in the course of a tragic fire in New York; but really we are honoring all firefighters, because there are hundreds of thousands of firefighters throughout this land, in New York and every other State, who daily risk their lives; and it is only by accident of fate that these three people, unfortunately, were killed. Every firefighter risks his or her life every day of the year for the safety of all of us, and certainly we ought to honor them and their sacrifices and their potential sacrifices. We all sleep soundly, and we take for granted the heroism of these people whose services we might need at any day. They are not paid as well as they should be, they live probably in conditions not as well as they ought to, but we all depend on them for our lives and property; and we ought to honor them and express our sorrow and our condolences at this loss. Mr. Speaker, I join in supporting this resolution.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Joel Buckwald, a Senior Archivist in the New York office of the National Archives and Records Administration whose service to this country spans the past sixty years. Mr. Buckwald began working for the National Archives on June 3, 1941 after two weeks with the Public Buildings Administration. Hired under the first Archivist of the United States as a Junior Professional Assistant, he quickly rose to the rank of Junior Archivist before enlisting in the Navy at the end of 1942. During World War II, Mr. Buckwald was assigned to the United Nations Central Training Film Committee. Afterwards he studied at the City College of New York and in 1947 returned to the National Archives, where he has worked for the past fifty-four years. In 1950 Mr. Buckwald moved backed to the New York area to help establish the agency's first regional records center. Thirteen years later he was a consultant to the Organization of American States in archives and records management, spending three months advising the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Lima, Peru. In 1970 he became the first head of the archives branch for New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, a post he held for seventeen years before becoming Senior Archivist in what is now the Northeast Region of the National Archives and Records Administration. Today the National Archives and Records Administration will honor Mr. Buckwald's distinguished career, and tomorrow Mr. Buckwald will celebrate his 84th birthday. For his many years of exceptional leadership and dedication, I congratulate and thank Mr. Buckwald, and I wish him many happy and rewarding years to come.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not rise to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young); the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers); and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo); for acceding to the request made by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and myself to include funds in this bill for the environmental impact statement for the New York-New Jersey Cross Harbor Rail Freight Tunnel. This project was first authorized in TEA-21 and received funds for a Major Investment Study, which was completed last year. New York City, Long Island, and Westchester and Putnam Counties and the State of Connecticut are virtually cut off from the rest of the country's rail freight system for lack of any way for rail freight to cross the Hudson River, except at a bridge 140 miles north of New York City. After examining numerous alternatives, the MIS recommended construction of a rail tunnel under New York Harbor. The benefit to the region will be about $420 million a year and the benefit to cost ratio is 2.3 to 1. The environmental impact will be profound as it would remove 1 million tractor trailers from off the region's roads a year. So I am gratified this was included in the bill. I am disappointed the Second Avenue Subway was not included in the bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of this bill to provide appropriations for the Department of Transportation for Fiscal Year 2002. First, I would like to thank Chairman Young, Ranking Member Obey, Subcommittee Chairman Rogers, and Ranking Member Sabo, for including funds for the Cross Harbor Rail Freight Tunnel Environmental Impact Study in this bill. This project was first authorized in TEA-21, and received funds for a Major Investment Study, which was just completed last year. After examining numerous alternatives, the MIS recommended construction of a rail tunnel under New York Harbor to facilitate cross-harbor freight movement. The MIS confirmed that a tunnel would be beneficial in several respects. The economic return to the region would be about $420 million a year. The benefit to cost ratio is 2.3 to 1. The environmental impact would be profoundly felt, as the tunnel would remove one million trucks from our roads per year, not to mention the economic benefit produced by reduced congestion and the lower cost of consumer goods. I would like to thank the Committee leadership for understanding the importance of this project, and including funds for the EIS phase so that we can continue the progress of the last few years and correct the freight infrastructure imbalance that exists in the region East of the Hudson of New York and Connecticut. I do have a few concerns, however, regarding transit funding. As many of you know, New York relies heavily on public transportation, and as such, we have a number of projects which are essential to the economic stability, as well as to the environmental quality, of the city. I would like to thank the Committee for including funds for one of these projects, The East Side Access Project, to connect the Long Island Railroad to Grand Central Station in Manhattan. Unfortunately, no funds were included for the Second Avenue Subway. Both of these projects are important, and will require a greater federal investment if they are to be completed in the sufficient time frame. That being said, I hope this problem can be resolved, and I urge the Appropriations Committee to include funding for the Second Avenue Subway when this bill goes to Conference with the Senate. I have a number of other concerns with this bill. For instance, funds should be included for the inspection of Mexican trucks operating in the United States. We must not sacrifice safety in an attempt to comply with NAFTA. Overall, however, this is a good bill, which fully funds the highway and aviation trust funds. I would like to comment Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Sabo for all their hard work in crafting this important legislation, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Slaughter amendment to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Museum Services. Frankly, this amendment is just a drop in the bucket compared to the increase these cultural agencies need and deserve. But it is finally a step in the right direction. I hope that the senseless battles over Federal funding for the arts is finally behind us. We have debated the proper role of government in supporting the arts time and again, and the facts are clear, the NEA is a good investment for our country. I will not rehash all the arguments in favor of Federal funding, from the economic stimulus it provides, to the private and local public money it leverages. We know about the broad geographic reach of the NEA, with grants to all 50 States. The Challenge America initiative is touching hundreds of rural communities across the country. We know that NEA supports numerous educational projects for young children and lifelong learners alike. And then there are the intangible benefits of the arts, their ability to lift our spirits and forge a sense of community. We need only think of the stirring presentation by Peter Yarrow of Peter, Paul and Mary at the Republican and Democratic Caucuses this week to understand the power that music has to bring people together. So the debate is over. The question is no longer should the government subsidize the arts; the question is how much. With this amendment, we take a very modest step forward, but we must do much more. We must fund the NEA at a level that enables it to carry out its mission. Today, the NEA is nearly 40 percent below where it was before the drastic cut of 1995, and resources are stretched too thin to adequately fund worthy projects. The average grant size has dropped by half and will drop even further without sufficient funding. When we limit funding, we also hamper the ability of the NEA to continue reaching out to underserved areas. Mr. Chairman, last year the NEA closed a dark chapter in our history when Congress approved the first budget increase in nearly a decade. Today we must build on that important victory and pass the Slaughter amendment. It is a minimal increase, a very minimal increase, but it is the very least we can do. Let us begin a new era in which we respect and support the arts and humanities and the contribution they make to our society, and back up that respect with some real resources.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Gilda's Club of New York City on the occasion of its sixth anniversary. Since opening its doors in 1995, Gilda's Club has welcomed over 2,600 people--men, women and children--all of whom have been affected by cancer. The Club was founded in honor and named after the late Gilda Radner. While best known for her work as a comedienne, Radner's legacy continues in Gilda's Club as it carries out her dying wish: that persons, like herself, living with cancer would find a community in which to meet, support, and share with those also struggling with this deadly disease. Gilda's Club is a non-profit organization that provides free-of- charge services to anyone living with cancer, from those struggling with their own illnesses to their families and friends. Most noteworthy of these services is the Club's innovative and effective Basic III `Plus' program. The program focuses on providing members with an emotional and social foundation from which to draw hope and strength. From encouragement in Support and Networking Groups, to education in Lectures and Workshops, to family bonds in Noogieland, The Family Focus and Team Convene, the Basic III `Plus' program covers all the bases in creating the network patients need to heal both emotionally and physically. This network is made possible by the volunteers and members of Gilda's Club, who strive to create a welcoming atmosphere for newcomers. These members and volunteers form lasting bonds while participating in Club programs. It is this unique bond that allows members to feel comfortable turning to the Club in their times of need. Executive Director Joel Sesser most accurately describes the Club as ``a special community at the crossroads of the world.'' Everyone, regardless of their sex, religion, or ethnic background, is guaranteed loving care and support at Gilda's Club. For the hope and spirit it has provided to its members and the inspiration it provides to the community, I offer my sincere congratulations to Gilda's Club of New York City for its six years of exceptional service.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Aircraft Clean Air Act of 2001 along with Senator Diane Feinstein who has introduced the companion bill in the Senate. This legislation is intended to create a procedure within the FAA to record cabin air quality incidents on commercial flights and to require airlines to turn over certain information regarding those complaints to the FAA. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that there is no way for passengers and crew members to register complaints about poor air quality they may have experienced on a commercial flight in the United States. Airlines are not required to save, or make available, valuable maintenance records of the flights where air quality problems are reported. Nor are they required to make available the chemical constituents present to which a person on the plane may be exposed. As a result, we have very little information as to the frequency or nature of cabin air quality incidents. The Aircraft Clean Air Act of 2001 addresses this problem by allowing passengers and crew members to register cabin air quality complaints directly with the FAA. The FAA is then required to pass the complaint on to the appropriate airline, and to keep records of all complaints for ten years. Further, a passenger or crew members may request that the airline named in their complaint turn over the applicable mechanical and maintenance records of the flight in question if they have had a medical professional verify their symptoms. Airlines would have 15 days to turn over this information, after which a civil penalty of $1,000 per day would be levied on the airline for every day they do not turn over the requested information. The Aircraft Clean Air Act of 2001 addresses another issue as well, the level at which aircraft are pressurized in flight. Currently airplanes are pressurized at 8,000 feet while they are in the air. This means that for the duration a flight is in the air, it feels to the passengers as if they are at 8,000 feet above sea level, regardless of the actual altitude of the aircraft. The 8,000 foot standard was based on outdated research that used an unrepresentative sample of the population. Recently, there have been questions regarding the safety of the 8,000 foot level. As a person goes higher above sea level, the rate at which oxygen is absorbed into the body decreases. This could cause problems such as shortness of breath and numbness in limbs, and lead to other health related problems. The Aircraft Clean Air Act of 2001 authorizes the FAA to sponsor a study to determine if the cabin altitude rate, as currently defined by existing government regulation, should be lowered. The study would examine the affects of altitudes between 5,000 and 8,000 feet on various types of people that broadly represent the public. The bill allows universities to compete to conduct the study, and allows the National Academy of Sciences' ``Committee on Air Quality in Passenger Cabins of Commercial Aircraft'' to select the winner. Mr. Speaker, airlines should be required to record all air quality complaints from passengers and crew members and to turn over the requested maintenance information in order to insure that our airlines remain the safest in the world. This is a matter of extreme importance for the flying public as well as those who work in the industry, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, twenty years ago the medical world was riding a wave of confidence. Our scientists had conquered polio, tuberculosis, smallpox, you name it. We were ready for any new challenge. But no one was prepared on June 5, 1981 for the crisis that was to come. Some thought this new discovery to be a rare pneumonia, others a new form of cancer. It attracted minor attention at the time, but little did we know that the world was about to meet the most devastating epidemic of our time--AIDS. When we look back now at our response to the onset of AIDS, we see a nation that ignored an epidemic and a Congress reluctant to devote resources to finding its cure. Too many people believed that they could never contract AIDS and they failed to protect themselves from it. But no one is immune, and by the time we looked up AIDS had reached every community across the world. One need only look at the decimation of the African continent to see the dramatic consequences of our inattention to AIDS. In the last decade we have made great strides in this country in dealing with this terrifying crisis. Research funded by the NIH has yielded incredible breakthroughs in treatment, indefinitely prolonging the lives of people living with HIV. The Ryan White CARE Act has established a comprehensive program of treatment and support services, bringing a little hope and humanity to people living with HIV and AIDS. The HOPWA program is helping almost 60,000 people a year find the stable housing they need to live long and productive lives. We should be proud of these efforts. But there is a new epidemic that has beset us. It is called complacency. The flat funding for Ryan White proposed by the President, the rising number of HIV cases reported in women, the dramatic increase in HIV across communities of color. These should serve as a wake-up call to all of us that our work is nowhere near done. We must redouble our efforts in prevention and treatment if we hope to ever eliminate it from our midst. Before we can eradicate AIDS, we must eradicate the complacency that surrounds us. Mr. Speaker, anniversaries are a time for reflection, a time to look back at where we've been and look ahead to where we may be going. We have a lot to be proud of in our response to the AIDS epidemic, but let's take this opportunity to re-energize our AIDS policy and conquer this terrible disease once and for all.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, there is a real plot here in this Tax Code. In 1981, I do not think Ronald Reagan understood what he was doing. It was said for a long time that the Democrats are the party of tax and spend. The Republicans of the 1980s and 1990s turned out to be the party of borrow and spend. From George Washington through Jimmy Carter, the national debt that was accumulated for 200 years when Ronald Reagan took office was a little under $800 billion. The next 12 years of Republican Presidents and half that time, a Republican Senate, that national debt more than quadrupled to $4.3 trillion. David Stockman admitted why. He said they knew what they were doing, because only by deliberately creating multi-hundred billion dollar annual deficits can you politically withstand the demand of the American people for more health care, for decent numbers of nurses in the hospitals, for shoring up Medicare and Social Security. And what does this tax cut do? It is deliberately designed to create multi-hundred billion dollar annual deficits in the future, $4 trillion of tax cuts in the next decade if it does not sunset, so that we will be able to stand on this floor 10 years from now or 6 years from now and say, we have to cut Social Security benefits, we have to increase the retirement age, we have to cut back on Medicare, we cannot think about prescription drugs for Medicare, we cannot build the highways and bridges and roads we need, we cannot put the money into education, because we have a $300 billion annual deficit this year. Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose of this tax cut, because the people who are doing it really do not believe that government ought to fund Social Security or Medicare or prescription drugs under Medicare and all the other things, because the purpose of this tax cut and the effect of it will be, because it is so huge and we are told we have these huge surpluses for 10 years; 10 year surplus projections are about as reliable as 10-year weather projections. If we pass this, we are deliberately creating multi-hundred billion dollar deficits in order to justify cutbacks in all of the programs that the people of this country want.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, by lifting the global gag rule, this bill does not send U.S. funds overseas to pay for abortions. The 1973 Helms amendment prohibits Federal funding of abortions as a method of family planning. This amendment remedies a hypocritical double standard imposed by the global gag rule which would be unconstitutional if it were applied to family planning organizations in the United States. Although it is constitutionally permissible for the U.S. government to restrict how a U.S.-based organization spends Federal funds, the Constitution does not permit the government to impinge upon an organization's rights to free speech and association by restricting how it spends funds received from other non-Federal sources. Under the global gag rule, foreign organizations that receive U.S. family planning funds cannot use their own non-U.S. funds to provide medical counseling, which includes information about abortion or abortions or to lobby their own governments on the subject. These restrictions, if applied to U.S. organizations, would quickly be struck down as violating the right to free speech and association. The United States should respect the rights of citizens of other countries to freedom of speech. It is arrogance for us to attempt to limit the rights of free speech abroad in a way we would never do at home. I urge the defeat of this amendment.