Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object; but I ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) to explain the bill.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I am very glad to join my good friend from Florida in urging support for this bill. This is the third in a series of bills we have considered on the floor in the last 7 years to deal with some Supreme Court decisions from the early nineties. It is extremely important for the preservation of some of the free exercise protections of the Constitution, for the free exercise of religion. It is different, more narrow, than the Religious Liberty Protection Act we considered on the floor last year. That bill, as you may recall, had some people concerned with some civil rights implications. Those concerns have been allayed. They are not present in this bill. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union, both of which had concerns about last year's bill, both support this bill. Every religious group that I am aware of supports this bill. I am aware of no opposition from any religious or civil rights or civil liberties group, and I am very glad to participate finally in passing this bill and sending it on to the President. I want to join the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) in thanking Senators Kennedy and Hatch for their work. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) for his valuable work and leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. I want to thank the staff of the Committee on the Judiciary. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, (Mr. Edwards), who joins me as the lead Democratic sponsor of the bill and has been a staunch supporter of religious liberty. I particularly want to thank a member of the committee staff on the minority side, David Lachmann, who worked on this issue when he was on my staff, when he was on Congressman Solarz' staff before I was here, and since he has been on the committee staff, and without whose efforts we probably would not be here today. So I am very glad this is here today. I am glad one of the last things we do before our recess is to reaffirm the commitment of the Congress to religious liberty and send this on to the President. Again, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I certainly am very happy to withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is a rare event indeed that a 172-acre island just off the tip of Manhattan that includes beautiful historic buildings, its own infrastructure and vistas of open space becomes available. Since the U.S. Coast Guard left Governor's Island, thousands of New Yorkers, never short on opinions, have weighed in with proposals for its use, ranging from relocating Yankee Stadium to building an education center, to keeping an open space. The future of the island has attracted national attention as well. In an effort to balance the Federal budget in 1997, a provision was included in the Balanced Budget Act, despite the strong objections of the New York delegation, mandating that the island be sold by 2002 for not less than $500 million, a price which even in New York's thriving real estate market is absurdly out of the question. I rise today to reiterate the call to strip the arbitrary sales price of $500 million from the Balanced Budget Act and to voice my strong support for transfer of the island to the State or City of New York at no cost. The island was donated to the Federal Government by New York 200 years ago, for no cost, for use as a military base; and now that the military no longer needs it, it is only right that the Federal Government return it to New York with the same courtesy and graciousness with which it was donated in 1800. The island was used inappropriately a few years ago as collateral to help balance the budget; but now that we have extraordinary surpluses, the proposed auction of this island must be canceled. For several years I have been working with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) in trying to free Governor's Island from the chains of the Balanced Budget Act. In that vein, we were pleased to be joined recently by Mayor Giuliani and by Governor Pataki in putting forward a framework for a conceptual plan to redevelop the island. Many of those interested in the return of the island to the public agree that this plan, if followed, is a promising first step in this process. The island would be mixed use, meaning a significant portion of it would be devoted to open space and educational facilities to teach and remember the history of the island, along with some limited commercial activities such as park concessions, a hotel and a convention center to be established in one of the existing buildings in order to pay for the island's upkeep. With this limited development, it is hoped the island could sustain itself financially while providing an enjoyable and educational place for everyone who visits New York. While we still have some stumbling blocks to overcome in New York in the way of local issues, we have begun a dialogue. It is a dialogue that I believe will produce an outcome satisfactory to the governor, the mayor, local elected officials, local planning and civic organizations and, most importantly, to those in New York and throughout the United States who would want to enjoy this treasure in New York Harbor. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, it is this body in which virtually no dialogue on this subject has taken place. When we were scrambling to balance the budget, Governor's Island was seen as an easy mark for a fictitious $500 million. I would point out that this Congress is now scrambling to find new and creative ways to give the money back to Americans. I would say this is a perfect opportunity. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, having taken this opportunity to air these issues on the floor of the House, and hoping that the House will see its way clear in the next year or so to deal with this issue properly, I will not cause the chairman to exercise his point of order. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the DeLauro amendment to strike the provision which bans Federal health plans from offering abortion coverage. Approximately two-thirds of private fee-for-service plans and 70 percent of HMOs provide abortion coverage. Until 1995, the Federal Government in its employee benefit plans likewise provided this coverage, but we have allowed the anti-choice forces in this House to substitute their judgment and their morality and their opinions to impose those opinions and judgments on the women in the workforce of the United States. This is shameful and unjust. We should not allow the ideological bias of some Members to decide what more than a million employees of the Federal Government can do with their own compensation. By specifying what they can do with their own compensation, we are seriously intruding into their privacy and their control over their own salaries and benefits. Mr. Chairman, a moment ago it was alluded to the fact or to the assertion that what will be remembered in the future is what we do with respect to the lives of innocents. Well, the fact is there is a difference of opinion as to when life begins, and we say that a woman must have the ability to make her own moral choices and not have the Government make that choice. The Supreme Court says that, too; but we are misusing the power of this House to say we cannot impose our will on the women of America in terms of whether they choose to have an abortion. We cannot substitute our judgments for theirs, but we can substitute our judgment for those who happen to work for the Federal Government because we can make sure that their insurance will not cover it. That is wrong. They have the right to make their own moral judgments. Every woman must make a moral judgment for herself and we should not substitute the judgments of the Members of this House for theirs. That is an arrogant form of moral imperialism, and we should not do it.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am rising to offer this amendment on behalf of myself and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell). I thank them for cosponsoring this amendment with me. This amendment addresses a unique and gruesome form of violence against woman known as honor crimes, in which a woman is maimed or murdered by a relative, usual male, under the perception that the family's honor has been offended. What is most shocking is that these women are attacked by their own family Members: brothers, fathers, even sons. Most of us are taught to protect and care for members of our family, not to brutalize them. While preserving one's family honor is obviously no excuse for attacking any person, it is even more shocking that many of these honor crimes are not the result of a so-called dishonorable act, but of a mere belief or perception that such an act may have occurred. In countries like Bangladesh, for example, women are attacked with acid and whipped if they are merely suspected of a moral indiscretion. In an 11-month period in Pakistan, there were over 675 reported honor killings. Women in Afghanistan suspected of adultery are threatened with death by stoning, as are women in Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates. While I could continue with gruesome details and statistics on the subject, I think the point is made. There is nothing honorable about whipping one's wife because one suspects her of adultery. There is nothing honorable about throwing acid on a daughter because she marries without permission. This is simply a horrid remnant of ancient cultures which places no value on the lives of women, and that must be addressed. Unfortunately, as much as I wish it would, this amendment will not end this ghastly form of violence against women. However, it is an opportunity for the Congress of the United States to go on record and state clearly and resoundingly that these crimes should stop, and it is an opportunity to call for the U.S. Government to use its considerable resources to reduce the incidence of these crimes. It is my hope as well that this amendment will call national attention to this horrible form of violence against women, and begin to get the ball rolling on a multinational effort to end this practice. An individual honor crime is not just an attack on one woman, it is an attack on the entire gender, and a violation of the most basic of human rights, the right to exist as a person and the right to personal autonomy.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Kucinich Amendment to cut funding for the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC). The KPC has served as an important force for peace and stability in an unstable region. After the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) demilitarized, the KPC was formed in an effort to employ former KLA members in a capacity which could be beneficial to the region. Since it's inception, the KPC has done important work in Kosovo, cleaning disease infested garbage dumps in Pristina, repairing roads and bridges and helping to rebuild over 1,000 homes. While individual members of the KPC have been accused of carrying illegal weapons, and while I do believe these individuals should be dealt with, the KPC as a whole has played an important role in the quest for peace in Kosovo. On February 4th, in Mitrovica, KPC members intervened along with French and Italian NATO peacekeepers to disperse an angry crowd. The leadership of the KPC has repeatedly spoken out for tolerance and reconciliation amongst the different ethnic groups within the region. Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be a grave mistake to deny funding to this important organization at this most tumultuous time in Kosovo's history. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Kucinich amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I understand the reasoning behind the gentleman's point of order. I agree with him that we must be very wary about legislating on appropriations bills, which we do too often in this House. However, I believe two things: one, that this is a situation that begs our immediate attention. This amendment is in the form of a nonbinding resolution calling on the United States government to begin to address this issue with world leaders and the United Nations. I would hope we could make this statement here today. Two, I would also point out that I do not really believe this changes existing law. This simply urges the Executive Branch to do certain things. It is not binding. It does not change the law. The law is a binding rule, that is what the dictionary defines the law as. Therefore, it does not meet that definition. It does not change the law. I would submit it is not, therefore, legislating on an appropriation bill.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald). (Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this bill would place an international gag rule on organizations that use their own non-U.S. supplied funds to provide abortion services, or even to refer people or to mention abortion services. The American people support family planning and realize that it is necessary, successful, and addresses a critical need. Nearly 600,000 women a year die of causes related to pregnancy and childbirth, and more than 150 million married women in the developing world want contraceptives but have no access to them. International family planning efforts have been remarkably successful and have saved women's lives, improved women's health, and reduced poverty. It is shocking that proponents of the so-called Mexico industry restrictions claim that these family planning programs increase the number of abortions when, in fact, it is clear that these efforts have prevented more than 500 million unintended pregnancies. The Mexico City restrictions are pernicious, unnecessary, and harmful. They would severely limit family planning efforts and result in more unwanted pregnancies, more fatalities among women, and more abortions. They are a clear restriction on free speech which we would never tolerate in this country. Why should America export restrictions on free speech? Mr. Chairman, this bill would place an international gag rule on organizations that use their own non-U.S. funds to provide abortion services. This policy is clearly unacceptable, and is not supported by the President or by the American people. Last year, in a repugnant effort that held UN dues payments hostage to family planning restrictions, we were forced into an unworkable compromise. We cannot allow this to happen again. We must remain strong and oppose the global gag rule that threatens women's lives. The American people support family planning and realize that it is necessary, successful, and addresses a critical need. According to the World Health Organization, nearly 600,000 women die each year of causes related to pregnancy and childbirth, and more than 150 million married women in the developing world want contraceptives, but have no access to them. International family planning efforts have been remarkably successful and have saved women's lives improved women's health, and helped reduce poverty. I am shocked that proponents of these so-called ``Mexico City'' restrictions claim that our family planning programs, increase the number of abortions, when, in fact, studies show that these efforts have prevented more than 500 million unintended pregnancies. There is no need to impose this type of gag rule on organizations that use their own money to further their objectives and to make women's lives safer. The ``Mexico City'' restrictions are pernicious, unnecessary, and harmful. They severely limit family planning efforts and result in more unwanted pregnancies, more fatalities among women, and more abortions. They are a clear restriction on free speech. What an American export. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the honorable gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I will not belabor the point, but I think it is a simple enough thing to ask that this House go on record urging the United States government, the Executive Branch, to use its resources to stop these killings, to stop this remnant of a former barbarous age. I hope that despite whatever technicalities there may be, that this in effect precatory amendment can be adopted. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. point of order

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I agree that there are many deficiencies with this bill, particularly the ones that have been cited by some of my Democratic colleagues: the lack of adequate funding for debt relief, the lack of adequate funding for AIDS, the 32 percent below requested funding for development in Asia and Africa, family planning cut 29 percent below requested levels. We are acting as if we have to enact an austerity budget, and perhaps that was dictated by the budget resolution, in a time of huge and unprecedented surpluses. These considerations would ordinarily lead me to say we ought to vote against the bill. But this bill comes at a particular time right now. This bill comes at a time when there are very sensitive negotiations which may determine whether there is major warfare in the Middle East or whether a peace agreement finally ends the 100 Years War. The aid for Israel and Egypt is locked into this bill. I very much fear that if this House today were to vote against this bill, it would send the wrong signal to the Palestinian negotiators, a signal of wavering support for Israel which might make the Palestinian negotiators even more rigid and less willing to make the necessary compromises to reach a peaceful settlement than they have thus far shown themselves to be. The Israelis have shown themselves willing to make very far-reaching compromises. So far the Palestinians have been rigid. They have to make compromise positions if there is going to be an agreement and not an explosion. For that reason, I do not want to send the wrong signal to them that could be misunderstood as wavering support for Israel. Therefore, I will vote for this bill today, but I want to make it very clear that if the deficiencies in funding for the Asian and African family planning and other accounts are not fixed as this bill goes through the conference, I may very well vote against the conference report when it comes back here. If the President should decide that he has to veto this bill, I will certainly vote to sustain the veto. But today, with the Camp David negotiations going on, today is the wrong time to send a signal that could be misinterpreted and that could deleteriously affect the chances for peace in the Middle East. Today I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, for the moment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I will not burden the House with a duplicate description of the legislation. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, has given us a very accurate and adequate description of what this legislation does. We are dealing today with a complex interstate taxation issue, and we are dealing with it the right way. Industry and State and local governments have worked together for the last 2 years to formulate an intelligent and fair way to manage the taxation of wireless telecommunications dealing with such complex issues as sourcing, nexus, and the place of a customer's primary use. All this work analysis and cooperation will ensure the calls which may be made in one jurisdiction but which are received in or passed through several others are not confronted with a thicket of taxing jurisdictions. It will simplify the process of tax collection without imposing any new taxes, all of this to the benefit of consumers, of the industry, and of taxing jurisdictions. I hope we can take a lesson from the way in which this complex taxation issue has been handled and perhaps apply it to the Internet tax issue which, so far, has not been handled in this way but has been overly politicized with a result that none of the critical issues in that area have been resolved and may not be resolved for some time to come. It is regrettable that the Internet tax bill was marked up in committee and voted on the floor at the behest of the leadership before a hearing was held. I am almost embarrassed to note that we only held our first hearing on the subject after that floor vote. Shooting first and asking questions later is no way to help foster a stable economic environment for the new economy. By very complete contrast, the development of this legislation has been a model of cooperation and bipartisanship. Majority and minority staff worked with the States, with local governments, and with industry to perfect the bill introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Gekas), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and myself. I support this legislation, and I commend all of those who came together to make it a product that will be a credit to this Congress. I hope that the cooperation, common sense, and consensus which has shaped this legislation will have a positive influence on the Internet tax issue as we deal with that in the future. Regardless, this is a good and a worthy bill. It has the support of State and local government as well as of the industry. It has been introduced by the bipartisan leadership of the Committee on the Judiciary and of the subcommittee, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, and let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the leadership of the Committee on the Judiciary for rushing this bill to the floor, this simple and just bill. This bill was introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), and myself on June 15, less than a month ago, and here it is on the floor. Lightning speed, as legislation goes. As I said, I want to express my appreciation to the committee leadership for that. Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with the result of the tyrannical conduct of the Syrian government, which for generations held the Jewish population, the small Jewish population of Syria, hostage to its tyranny. Even today the Jews and the Kurds are the only minorities in Syria not allowed by law to participate in the political system, and the Jews are the only minority in Syria whose passports and identity cards must note their religious affiliation. In 1992, as was said before, as a result of negotiations by the President, President Assad of Syria agreed to let those Syrian Jews emigrate to the United States so long as they pretended they were not emigrating. So instead of being classified as refugees, because we agreed, the United States Government, to play along with Assad to let him save face, they came here as tourists, on tourist visas, and were then granted political asylum. Because of that, they are not granted the same right as other refugees and the same ability to regularize their status and eventually become United States citizens. The United States should not subordinate our justice system and our naturalization system to the tyranny of Syria. This simple bill asks a simple thing: Change the status of this small group of people, and the bill is capped at 3,000, change the status of this small group of people, in effect to refugees, as they really were and are, give them the same rights and stop kowtowing 8 years later to the whim of the Syrian dictator. It is a just bill, it is a good bill, and it is a simple bill. It rights an injustice, and it will be of great benefit to a number of people, albeit a small number of people; but justice demands its passage. I urge all my colleagues to vote for the bill. Again, I thank the leadership of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for helping speed this bill to where it is today.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, today's health care marketplace is dominated by six large companies who enjoy monopoly or near monopoly power in certain areas of the country. These companies possess unchallenged power in their negotiations with health care providers because providers are restricted by antitrust laws from bargaining collectively for more favorable terms. We hear from critics of this legislation that the bill is just about helping doctors get rich, but I say it is about helping patients get quality care. When a doctor is told they may only provide the cheapest treatment available, it is the patient who suffers. When a doctor is told he may not even discuss alternative treatments not covered by the insurance plan, it is the patient who suffers. When a doctor is told he must see a dozen patients in an hour in order to make the reimbursement rates viable, it is the patient who inevitably suffers. This bill is not about lining the pocketbooks of doctors, it is about allowing doctors to stand up to the insurance companies and say, we will not accept conditions that harm our patients or put them in jeopardy. Opponents argue that this bill would significantly raise costs in the health care industry because doctors will be able to extract exorbitant reimbursement rates from insurance companies if they were able to negotiate collectively. But to suggest that doctors will have these monolithic, multibillion dollar companies at their mercy defies logic and credulity. What this bill would do, all this bill would do, is to place doctors on a somewhat less tilted, a somewhat more level playing field on which to negotiate decent rates and decent conditions for their patients. This may be the most important bill we could pass this year. I urge its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1304, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act of 1999. This is a very important piece of legislation that will immensely improve the quality of patient care in this Nation. Mr. Chairman, the health care landscape is increasingly being controlled by just a few large insurance companies. Today's health care marketplace is dominated by six large companies, who enjoy monopolies or near monopolies in certain areas of the country. These companies possess unchallenged power in their negotiations with health care providers because providers are restricted by antitrust laws from bargaining collectively for more favorable terms. It has gotten to the point where insurance companies are effectively dictating the terms of an agreement to the providers. We hear from critics of this legislation that this bill is just about helping doctors get rich, but I say that it's about helping patients get quality care. When a doctor is told he may only provide the cheapest treatment available, it's the patient who suffers. When a doctor is told he may not even discuss alternative treatments not covered by the insurance plan, it's the patient who suffers. And when a doctor is told that he must see a dozen patients an hour in order to receive viable reimbursement rates, it's the patient who inevitably suffers. This bill is not about lining the pocketbooks of doctors. It's about allowing doctors to stand up to insurance companies and say, ``We will not accept conditions that harm our patients or put them in jeopardy.'' We must once again place medical decisions in the hands of doctors rather than an HMO bureaucrat who is not involved in our care. Opponents argue that this bill would significantly raise costs in the health care industry because doctors would be able to extract exorbitant reimbursement rates from insurance companies if they were able to negotiate collectively. But to suggest that doctors will have these monolithic, multibillion dollar companies at their mercy defies credulity. What this bill would do is place doctors on a somewhat more level playing field on which to negotiate. We do not tip the scales in their favor. Let me also mention another criticism of this bill raised by nonphysician providers such as nurse midwives and nurse practitioners. When the Judiciary Committee held hearings on this bill, these groups, among others, expressed in important concern over H.R. 1304, namely that doctors would be able to use the collective bargaining power granted under the bill to effectively exclude them from the field or severely limit their ability to practice. That is certainly not the intent of the bill. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that no member of the health care profession has the terms of his or her practice dictated to them. This includes all of the licensed nonphysician providers who have worked alongside doctors to provide quality care to patients. We do not want to provide a tool for one class of health care professionals to squeeze out another. That is why I worked with Representatives Frank and Jackson-Lee to amend the bill in the Judiciary Committee to specifically bar doctors, or any other provider, from entering into an agreement or conspiracy which would exclude, limit the participation or reimbursement of, or otherwise limit the scope of services to be provided by any other health care professional or group of professionals. Under this language, no member of the health care field can have the terms of their practice dictated to them by insurance companies, doctors, or anyone else. All terms will be worked out by negotiation, exactly as this bill intends. I am confident that this language fully protects all nurses and other nonphysician providers from attempts by doctors to limit their ability to practice. Mr. Chairman, this is responsible legislation that will release doctors from the grip of insurance companies and help them negotiate terms that best serve their patients. I believe this bill will help restore confidence in the doctor-patient relationship and ensure that it is only doctors and other licensed professionals who practice medicine. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1304 so that all providers will be free to practice in the best interests of their patients.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I was going to use my minute to talk about how this is a total red herring and this debate should not be about abortion because the bill does not talk about abortions. Then the amendment that I wrote and negotiated over a period of 6 months with doctors and nurses is cited by the gentleman on the other side as an abortion amendment. It has nothing to do with abortion. The purpose of section (e) is to say that a group of doctors cannot negotiate with the HMO an agreement that says they may not pay nurses more than x dollars an hour. It is to prevent one group of professionals, doctors generally, from saying that nurses may not do certain things that the law says they may do. That fear was expressed by the nurses, the physical therapists, the chiropractors; and we carefully negotiated language in this section with the doctors, the nurses, the chiropractors and the physical therapists to prevent the bill from being used by one group of health care practitioners to exclude or limit the reimbursement of another group of health care practitioners. It has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion, period. It is just completely irrelevant to it. This bill says nothing about abortion pro or con.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I must correct the statement made a moment ago. This bill does not grant any privilege to one group. I presume the gentleman meant doctors. The bill refers to ``all health care professionals,'' doctors, nurses, physical therapists, everybody in the field. It is not a cartel of one group. It is simply a mistaken fact and a misquote of the bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to increase the appropriation for the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS, or HOPWA, program by $18 million. This is $10 million less than the President requested, and far less than is truly needed to adequately fund this vital program, but represents the amount necessary to ensure that those already in the program do not receive a cut in service. I am delighted by the bipartisan nature of this amendment and I would like to thank Mr. Shays, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Horn, Mr. Foley, and Mr. Cummings for joining me in offering this amendment and demonstrating the bipartisan support that this program enjoys. Mr. Chairman, at any given time, one-third to one-half of all Americans living with AIDS are either homeless or in imminent danger of losing their homes. These are people who face discrimination, or have lost their jobs due to illness or, most cruelly, must choose between expensive, life-saving medications and other necessities such as shelter. This is where HOPWA comes in. HOPWA is the only federal housing program that specifically provides cities and states with the resources to address the housing crisis facing people living with AIDS. Among the services HOPWA delivers are rental assistance, help with utility payments, and information on low-income housing opportunities. It is also a crucial element in the effective treatment of HIV and AIDS. There is a clear link between stable housing and the ability of individuals living with HIV to live long and healthy lives. Some people have responded so well to new therapies that they have been able to go back to work after years on disability. However, these treatments require a stable living environment to be effective. To deny individuals the means to get healthy would be a terrible cruelty. HOPWA is a locally controlled program that provides communities the flexibility to implement the strategies that best respond to local housing needs. It also supplies a low-cost alternative to acute-care hospital beds, typically paid for with Medicaid dollars, which are often the only available shelter for people living with AIDS. In fact, whereas an acute-care facility would cost, on average, between $1,085 a day under Medicaid, assistance under HOPWA averages just $55 to $110 a day. So, HOPWA is not just compassionate, it is cost-effective. Currently, FY 2000 funds are serving thousands of people in 67 communities and 34 states. This is a well-run, far-reaching and successful program. But as the success of HOPWA grows, so too does the need for funding. As a result of recent advances in care and treatment, the people currently being housed are living longer and the waiting lists for these programs are growing even longer. HOPWA would require an increase just to keep up with inflation, but on top of these strains on the progam, 4 new cities will qualify for funds this year, stretching resources even thinner. The $18 million we ask for in this amendment, $10 million less than the President requested, is the bare minimum required if we are to ensure that those currently in the program are not threatened with a cut in service. As for the offset, let me be clear. This is not an attack on polar research. I am a very strong supporter of scientific research and I am disappointed that more money was not provided for it throughout the bill. However, under the budget rules, we must find an offset and a slight cut to the Polar and Antarctic research program, which receives a significant increase in this bill over last year, will do minimal harm to our research programs while providing very significant benefits to the HOPWA program and the people it serves. I would also add that there are eleven other agencies that supplement the work of NSF in the arctic, spending roughly $150 million a year, so this slight decrease will not damage our long-term research goals. Unfortunately, under these budget rules we are forced to pit one program against another. If we were not locked into the unrealistic caps placed on us by the Budget Resolution, I would advocate a large increase in both HOPWA and polar research. However, this is the hand we have been dealt and we must select our priorities. The housing crisis facing people living with HIV/AIDS exacts an enormous toll on individuals, their families, and communities across the country. HOPWA dollars help lessen this toll. Without proper funding for HOPWA, people with HIV and AIDS will continue to die prematurely in hospital rooms, shelters, and on the streets of our cities. I urge the adoption of this amendment.