Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we do not have to wait till next January, because I predict that we will have a bill on the floor, a completed conference report on the floor tomorrow. I also predict there will not have been a meeting, there will not have been votes or amendments. Now, I am not talking now about the merits of the bill. I am talking about honest, open and democratic procedure so that people can see what is being done in the open light of day in accordance with the normal rules of the House, which hopefully would not be waived in this case. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the honorable ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, again I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to instruct and remind them that all it says is that we instruct the conferees that meetings of the conference committee be open to the public and to the media; to be held in rooms selected to maximize the capacity for attendance, that is, in big rooms; and that members of the conference committee be allowed to offer and debate amendments. Mr. Speaker, I trust that that is a noncontroversial motion to instruct; and if in fact I recall correctly, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, said he agreed with this motion.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am very gratified to see that the Violence Against Women Act is finally here on the floor in a conference report so that we are going to pass it. For reasons I stated on the floor before and many others have said today, reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act is a tremendously important thing to do. I am unhappy that it is grouped with four completely unrelated other bills in this one bill, some of which I would vote for, and some against. It is grouped with part of the sex trafficking act. We all want to put an end to sex trafficking. That is a good provision. Victims of terrorism, to make it easier for victims to sue, a very good provision. It has nothing to do with the other bill, but it is a very good provision. But then we have two other bills that are not too good. We have the Internet Alcohol Act, which is a commercial dispute between rival groups and should not be in this bill; and we have Aimee's Law, an extremely foolish political sound bite, which will have no impact except to cost States money and to create more bureaucracy. Let us look at how ridiculous Aimee's Law, at least the version of Aimee's Law we have here, is. What this says is if someone is convicted of murder, rape or dangerous sexual offenses in one State, serves a jail term, and is subsequently released and then commits a similar crime in another State, the first State has to pay all the costs of incarceration and legal proceedings in the second State if the first State is a bad State. What do we mean by a bad State? If the individual had served less than 85 percent of the term of imprisonment; or, if the individual had served more than 85 percent of the maximum sentence, if the average term of imprisonment imposed by the State for these kinds of offenses is less than the average term imposed for that offense in all States? In other words, State A imposes an average sentence of 25 years. The national average is 27 years. Well, obviously State A had better improve its law. That is what we are saying. State A now changes its law to 28 years. That changes the average, and some other States change the average. State A is a bad State again, and it is going to be penalized if someone after serving 28 years goes out and commits another crime in a different State. Now, you have got a moving target here. I do not think the drafters of this act thought through, and since I do not think there was a committee vote on this bill, there was no opportunity for amendments, it never was properly debated. And what ever happened to our concern for States to be able to write their own criminal justice laws? Here we are telling them, you had better keep ratcheting up your terms of imprisonment, no matter what you think is right, to match everybody else's, lest we charge you. Now, it is not going to have a major practical effect, because the fact is that it is very rare for people to be convicted in a second State, but it is foolish and ought not be in this bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2311, the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000. This is important bipartisan legislation and I am pleased to see it on the floor today on its way to swift passage. I want to thank the authors for hearing the concerns that were raised when the bill first came through the House, and I believe we have reached a good compromise. Mr. Speaker, the AIDS epidemic has ravaged our communities throughout the country. The statistics are devastating. Through December 1998, nearly 700,000 people had been diagnosed with AIDS. Over 400,000 of these people have died. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that over 40,000 people become infected with HIV each year with an estimated 600,000 to 900,000 people living with HIV today. As a nation, we could have thrown up our hands and given up in the face of this terrible tragedy. But in 1990, in one of the great legislative achievements of the last decade, Congress took action to address this emergency and passed the Ryan White CARE Act. The CARE Act is a comprehensive program providing treatment and support services to those living with HIV and AIDS. It has brought hope and a little humanity to this terrifying crisis. The CARE Act is a model of how we can accomplish great things in this chamber. By working together, we have produced a program that provides vital health services to people across the country while targeting communities most in need. It is an efficient program that has been an unqualified success. We haven't found a cure for AIDS yet, but scientists are making promising discoveries every day, bringing hope that we may one day rid ourselves of this disease once and for all. Until then, there is the CARE Act, reaching out to people who are suffering with HIV and AIDS today and who need our help to lead healthy and productive lives. This is a humane program that deserves our strong support.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, and I want to join my colleagues in applauding the role played by the outgoing chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and also the role played by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), as well as the others in producing this bill. This bill, Mr. Speaker, is far better than the version this House passed last June and is free of the most objectionable provisions of that bill. I am disappointed it does not contain the Conservation and Reinvestment Act as it was passed by the House, but I understand the reasons for it. This bill does greatly increase protections for open spaces, but I hope we will revisit the CARA, which would provide even greater protections. At the same time, I strongly support the modest increase provided to the arts and humanities in this bill. Most notably, at long last, the National Endowment for the Arts will receive a well-deserved and much- needed increase. The modest increase included in this bill would not ordinarily be cause for celebration, but when its comes to the NEA, it is historic. Given the unfortunate record this Congress has produced over the last 6 years and the parliamentary chicanery we witnessed earlier this year, it is a major victory for supporters of the arts and humanities. With this increase, we have turned a corner in our debate on the arts. Just a few years ago, we were debating whether the NEA should be allowed to continue to exist; whether it was the proper role of government to subsidize the arts. But this increase is an acknowledgment that those of us who support government subsidy to the arts have won that fight. The American people believe the Federal Government has a role in cultivating the arts and humanities and that we must increase our commitment in this area. With this increase, the NEA will be able to continue its mission to reach those parts of the country that have not historically received grants. The appropriators should be hailed for increasing our commitment to arts education and community activity programs. They have also increased our support for the humanities and many cultural institutions. This is truly a victory for the cultural community. But we cannot be satisfied with this victory. While this increase is a significant step forward, we must do more. The arts can flourish throughout this country, but only if we make a significant investment. With enormous budget surpluses projected for years to come, we clearly have the money to make this a reality. The question is will we have the will to follow up on this fine step forward. Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the people involved in this bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today we consider legislation intended to protect automobile dealers against binding arbitration clauses in contracts with manufacturers and franchisers. Although it was narrowed in Subcommittee to cover only one industry, it is an important and necessary step, one for which the testimony we received in the Judiciary Committee certainly makes the case. Too often, these businesses are presented with contracts on a take- it-or-leave-it basis. If they do not accept the contract, with the binding arbitration clause, they risk losing their franchise and with it years of investment, both financial and the hard work they and their families have put into the business. That is a pretty coercive situation and one which most members of this House rightly view as contracts of adhesion. Moreoever, binding arbitration often deprives these businesses of their rights under State law, and their due process rights in court. Under certain circumstances, binding arbitration even threatens some contractual protections. Prohibiting this kind of unconscionable coercion is appropriate and I plan to support it. In addition to leaving other businesses exposed, this bill fails to protect individual consumers who also suffer violations of their rights under binding arbitration clauses in service agreements with sellers, and in credit agreements. During our hearing one witness for the auto dealers did admit that some dealers use these clauses in their contracts with their customers. Clearly this is a situation which also needs to be remedied. Now that the House has endorsed this fundamental protection for automobile dealers, I hope that the same concern which animates the bipartisan support for this legislation will help bring that bill into law as well. So while I do not believe this legislation goes far enough, it is an important step to protect small businesses and I urge its passage.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act is urgently needed, for reasons we have already heard. It is disgraceful not only that consideration of the reauthorization of this bill has been delayed until only days before it expires, but also that some Members of the other body have stated that VAWA will be attached to controversial bankruptcy legislation as a sweetener to get Members who object to that bill to vote for a combined bill. Joining these two bills would be a cynical and desperate ploy to try to obtain enactment of a bankruptcy bill that injures women and their families, injures consumers and small businesses, and which no longer will have a provision that would prevent those who use threats and violence to harass women and their doctors from using the Bankruptcy Code to evade their lawful fines under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. We cannot make an anti-woman and anti-family bill like that acceptable by attaching a popular and worthwhile measure, which should easily have passed on its own months ago. As Joan Entmacher, of the National Women's Law Center, has put it, ``This is not a sweetener, it's extortion.'' I call on the other body to do the right thing and pass the Violence Against Women Act on its own stand-alone bill. Let us continue to debate the many flaws of the proposed bankruptcy bill separately. But I urge the other body to not use battered, abused, and murdered women, who do not have the millions to lobby Congress, to give a gift to the banks and creditors. Let us pass this with bipartisan support today, pass it unencumbered to the Senate, and send it to the President. Mr. Speaker, reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act is urgently needed for reasons we have already heard. Every day four women die in this country as a result of ``domestic violence''--the euphemism for murders and assaults by husbands and boyfriends. That's approximately 1,400 women a year. Estimates indicate that every year 1.2 million women are forcibly raped by their current or former male partners. This bill is a crucial first step in addressing this horrific situation. It is disgraceful that this bill, which has overwhelming support in both houses, is coming up just a few short days before authorization for VAWA is set to expire. This delay is as irresponsible as it is unnecessary. We have a lot more work to do to reduce violence in our communities and in our families. We could add to the bill before us dozens of ways to strengthen its provisions, but at the very least, let us pass this underlying bill with bipartisan support today, pass it unencumbered in the Senate, and send it to the President.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we all fervently desire the successful conclusion of a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians that would allow Israelis and Palestinians to live free from violence and from the fear of violence. If part of such a mutually agreed, mutually negotiated agreement is the establishment of the Palestinian state with agreed upon borders, and agreed upon and acceptable security guarantees for Israel, I do not believe the United States would have any reason to object. But a unilaterally declared Palestinian state with no agreed upon borders, with territorial claims certainly conflicting with those of Israel, and with no security guarantees for Israel, is guaranteed to destroy the peace process and is very likely to result in violence and even war. That is why last July I introduced, along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), the Middle East Peace Process Support Act which now has over 100 cosponsors and is the basis of the bill we have before us today. I believe this is an essential bill. I look forward to an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote for it. The Peace Through Negotiations Act is meant to send a very clear signal to Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. Do not destroy the peace process. Do not condemn the Middle East to another round of violence and war by unilaterally declaring an independent Palestinian state. We warn you now, the United States will not recognize such a state. It will not give aid to such a state. It will do everything possible to prevent other nations from recognizing or aiding a unilaterally declared Palestinian state in any manner whatsoever. Chairman Arafat is now threatening to declare a Palestinian state unilaterally by mid November. Because of this continuing threat and the fact that Congress will not be in session in November, or we hope and trust that we will not be in session in November, it is imperative that we enact this bill now so that the Palestinian Authority understands that any unilateral action will produce a sharp and negative response from the United States. We must make clear that, if the Palestinian Authority unilaterally acts to destroy any prospect of a peace agreement and to make war and violence, very likely there will be severe consequences. The purpose of this bill is to deter such an action and those consequences. At the end of the most recent Camp David summit, Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat reaffirmed the central point of the Oslo agreement and pledged that Israel and the Palestinian Authority would both refrain from any unilateral actions as well as from statements that would incite violence. If these general principles are followed and the Palestinians remain peacefully engaged with Israel, which has proven to be a willing and a generous peace partner, this legislation will not need to be invoked, but it will have its desired effect by making such peaceful development much more likely. I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman); the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), ranking member; and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for the hard work they have done in this legislation. I urge every Member of this House to support this bill because only a negotiated peace can be a lasting peace.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, that is why I voted in the committee in favor of the bill. That is why I will vote again and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the bill so we do not step into this trap. Now, the manager's amendment, which was withdrawn, but certainly the rhetoric of the sponsors, which we heard again today, are full of untruths. They say that newborns do not receive full legal protection. But there exists a common law born-alive rule imposing liability to anyone who harms a person who was born and was alive at the time of the harmful act. The Federal statute known as the Baby Doe law already requires that appropriate care be administered to a newborn. They say that the Carhart decision, they grossly distort the Carhart decision, striking down Nebraska's ban on abortion procedures, Stenburg v. Carhart. The Supreme Court found the Nebraska ban unconstitutional because it imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to choose by banning safe and common abortion procedures and it lacked an exception to protect women's health. To suggest that Carhart is about the legal rights of newborns is deceptive and irresponsible; and it is untrue, outrageous, and insulting to suggest that pro-choice Members of the Congress wish to deprive newborns of legal rights. Carhart did not expand Roe, and recent court rulings have not put newborns in jeopardy. They deal only with pregnancy. They do not have any bearing on newborns. In summary, Mr. Speaker, this bill is unnecessary. I am not sure it is harmful in any way; but the real harm it does, the real purpose of it, is to get us to vote against it so they can go out and campaign and produce newspaper articles, such as the column by Mr. Will and Mr. Leo that say that pro-choice supporters are in favor of infanticide. We are not in favor of infanticide. The right to life begins, if not earlier, certainly at birth. No one disputes that. And we are, not many of us, are not going to fall into the trap by voting against this dishonest bill.

Mr. NADLER. That is why I voted for the bill in the committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I believe the only real purpose of this bill is to trap the pro-choice Members into voting against it so that they can slander us and slander the pro-choice movement as being in favor of infanticide.

Mr. NADLER. I will not yield at this point.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, during the meeting of the committee which approved the bill 22 to 1, when I asked minority members in the committee, pro-choice members of the committee, to support the bill, I did so partially in reliance on the words of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady). I read from the transcript of the committee meeting, ``And let me say that I think that the gentleman from New York and I have substantial common ground on issues related to this bill. And the gentleman has properly stated the purpose of this bill as being to reaffirm existing legal principle.'' This bill, as I read it, as I read it now does not change the law in any way. It is unnecessary. So why support it? Why vote for it? Because of its dishonest sponsorship, because of the dishonest purpose behind it. The purpose of this bill is only to get the pro-choice members to vote against it so that they can then slander us and say that we are in favor of infanticide. If I had any doubts about that, the manager's amendment and the Dear Colleague letter with it --

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Immigrant Health and Safety Act. I hope my Colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation designed to correct a very serious consequence of major immigration reform legislation that was passed into law in 1996. Prior to 1996, relief from deportation was possible for long-term immigrants of good moral character who had community ties in the U.S., if deportation would prove a cruel hardship for themselves or their families. No more than 4,000 such grants are permitted each year--and only to long-term, non-criminal immigrants with family and community ties in the U.S. In 1996, Congress severely limited this kind of relief. Even a cruel hardship to an individual--such as an extreme medical condition--cannot prevent that individual's deportation. Now only a showing that someone's deportation will result in extreme and unusual hardship to his/her immediate relative who is a legal permanent resident or U.S. citizen can prevent deportation. In other words, current law permits removal of long-term immigrants even if it would mean extreme medical hardship, disability, or even death. Immigrants who suffer form eminently treatable conditions in the United States could be subjected to suffering or perhaps death if forced to leave. They are also forced to leave their loved ones behind and sever ties with communities they have been a part of for years. Historically, humanitarianism and family unity have been principal policies underpinning U.S. immigration law. For a small group of immigrants, current law threatens individual lives, community integrity, and the well being of immigrant families. Our bill would allow the Attorney General discretion to cancel their removal from the U.S. if she determined their cases had merit. The bill would not increase the number of grants of relief available each year beyond the 4,000 already permitted in current law, but would remove an undue burden of the 1996 law on a small group of immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for many years. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and pass it as swiftly as possible.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), he just said that if we passed hate crimes legislation, defendants would opt for the Federal statute and so forth; but what the bill before the Senate that we are talking about, before the conference committee, I suppose, does is expand existing hate crimes legislation that has been on the books for 32 years three new categories: sexual orientation, gender, disability. It is already on the books. Has it had that effect?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NADLER. I would say to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the current statute is a hate crimes statute with respect to race, color, creed, national origin. That is the statute. The amendment would be sexual orientation, gender, disability.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I came here to rise in support of the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and in opposition to the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), because I read the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham); and I am not sure whether it is worth supporting or opposing, because it does not deal with anything in front of the conference. The gentleman purports it to mean that this would oppose the hate crimes legislation, but we know that there is hate crimes legislation on the Federal books, and it has been there for 32 years. What the Senate proposes, and what I hope the House accedes to, is to increase the purview of that legislation from race, color, creed, and national origin, to include, which it does now, to include sexual orientation, gender, disability of the victim. And we certainly should, because an attack on someone based on those characteristics is an extra assault on society and ought to be punished in an extra way. But look at the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham). We should instruct the conferees not to agree to anything that fails to recognize that the 14th amendment guarantees all people equal protection under the law. Well, of course. And the Hate Crimes Protect Act does not deny anyone equal protection under the law. So I have no problem with that provision, because it does not refer to anything in front of the Senate or the House. He instructs that we should not agree to provisions which deny equal protection under the law by conditioning prosecution of certain offenses under race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim. Well, the hate crimes legislation does not do that either. As was pointed out before, the hate crimes legislation does not say that if you attack a black person or a gay person only should you be prosecuted. It says if you attack someone because of their race, color, creed, of whatever variety, whatever race, whatever color or creed, whatever sexual orientation, whatever gender, because of that there is an extra viciousness and an extra protection, that does not deny equal protection under the law. Everybody is subject to it; everybody can be helped by it. Whether you are attacked because you are a man or a woman, a gay person or a straight person, a Christian, a Jew or a Hindu, black, white or green, it does not matter. Everybody gets that equal protection. And it says that we should not agree to any provision that would preclude a person convicted of murder from being sentenced to death. Well, that one, I do not agree with the death penalty, so I do not have a problem with that. But the fact is, it does not do that either. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) said that by the Federal Government prosecuting on a statute that does not have the death penalty, that might preclude the State from prosecuting the same act on a statute that does have the death penalty. But it is black-letter law. For the last 40 years it has been black- letter law, Black and Douglas dissenting only, 7 to 2 in the Supreme Court, that different sovereignties can prosecute the same acts under different statutes. That is why the State can prosecute for murder, and the Federal Government can prosecute for deprivation of civil rights. If the Federal Government prosecuted for deprivation of civil rights, the State can still prosecute for murder; and if the death penalty applies, apply it. So the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) is giving us in a motion to instruct, which is entirely phoney, tries to imply that the hate crimes legislation would do these things, which it clearly would not do. It is entirely a phony instruction; and it ought to be defeated, not because it is bad, but because it is phony; and the Conyers instruction to say to broaden hate crimes legislation to cover what should be covered, should be agreed to.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good bill to improve child support collections and to assert the priority of giving child support collections to the custodial parent, the mother usually, rather than to the States, as at present. That is a very good thing to do, and I applaud the sponsors of the bill. I do think there is one defect in the bill, which could be very much improved by the amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and I rise in support of that amendment. No one opposes the participation of religious institutions in this or any other program. In fact, currently, many religious organizations, including Catholic Charities, Protestant Welfare Services, and so forth, play a vital role in the delivery of these services. The problem is not their participation; the problem is allowing a taxpayer-funded program to be restricted, as the language in this bill would currently do; allowing a taxpayer-funded program to be restricted to members of only a particular religion or forcing an unwilling participant to participate in a religious activity or to be subject to proselytization in order to receive taxpayer-funded services. As presently drafted, this bill would allow that, and that is a real defect. We should respect the religious beliefs of every American. That is what religious liberty is all about. We should never ask anyone to lay aside his or her beliefs in order to receive taxpayer-funded services. The Government has no business subsidizing religious intolerance or discrimination in any form. So when it comes up for consideration, I urge my colleagues to support the Scott amendment, which would simply clarify that none of the funds in these programs be used in a way which would discriminate against any American on the basis of religion. It would harmonize this bill with the spirit of the first amendment and with the spirit of our civil rights laws and would make this bill, if not a perfect bill, then as close to a perfect bill as we are likely to see. So I urge my colleagues to support the Scott amendment and then to vote for the bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the opening of Marion's Continental Restaurant. Since 1950, Marion's has been a culinary delight for all New Yorkers. The savory continental cuisine served at Marion's is some of the city's finest. I am thrilled that Marion Nagy came to this country to live the American dream and, in doing so, has endeared Marion's to the hearts of New Yorkers. Restaurants come and go in New York City, but Marion's has endured for half a century. This is a true testament to the superb quality and hospitality available at Marion's. Mr. Speaker, I salute Marion's Continental Restaurant and I urge my colleagues to join me today in honoring and celebrating the anniversary of their 50 years serving the people of New York City.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today I support the recent letter signed by a majority of members of the House of Representatives urging the President to work for the release of Lori Berenson, an American Citizen illegally detained in a military prison in Peru. It is ridiculous that I must bring up this issue yet again after four years. How many letters must we send to the President of Peru on Ms. Berenson's behalf. How many times must Mark and Rhoda Berenson appeal to members of their own government before they are reunited with their child? Ms. Berenson was convicted four years ago of treason and sentenced to life imprisonment in Peru. The details of her case read like the script of a movie, secret Peruvian military tribunal, conviction in violation of international law, maximum security isolation, and now reports that her health is seriously threatened. Ms. Berenson was convicted by a judicial system which has been characterized by the U.S. State Department as ``inefficient, often subject to corruption, and easily controlled by the executive branch.'' The state department further states that ``* * * proceedings in the military courts--and those for terrorism in civilian court--do not meet internationally accepted standard of openness, fairness, and due process.'' Ms. Berenson's conviction has been condemned by the Organization of American States and the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights. How does the American government, the most powerful government on the globe, the world's hegemon, sit by and allow this to happen. How can we continue to tell Mark and Rhoda Berenson ``We're sorry, but there is nothing the United States of America can do to help free your daughter.'' I cannot express in words, the pain I would feel if my child was being held illegally, health deteriorating. All of us in this chamber should try to imagine for just a moment the pain that is felt each and every day by the Berensons. We must then turn that sadness into a collective cry for action on the part of the administration. United States citizens must not be treated in such a barbaric manner. I call on the President to act decisively. To use the vast resources of this great nation and demand Lori Berenson's release.