Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation that would eliminate federal transportation funding to any person or agency that purchases diesel-fueled buses to be used in any ozone, particulate, or carbon monoxide nonattainment area under the clean Air Act. Black clouds of diesel exhaust are all too commonplace in many urban areas. My bill, the Cleaner Buses for Cleaner Cities Act, will help alleviate the devastating environmental and health problems caused by diesel exhaust. Diesel exhaust negatively impacts millions of Americans every day. Diesel emissions are a large source of harmful oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and diesel particulate matter (PM). NOX is the main ingredient in ground level ozone (or smog) and a contributor to acid rain. Diesel PM is especially dangerous because it is fine enough to become lodged deep into the lungs, aggravating respiratory ailments such as asthma, bronchitis, and pneumonia. Furthermore, diesel exhaust has been linked to cancer, lung damage, and premature death. In my own district of New York City, the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) has carelessly proposed to purchase 756 diesel buses, more than two times the number of alternative fuel buses they plan to acquire. Its decision and any other local agency's similar decision endangers the air quality and health of their communities. Many highly polluted cities like Los Angeles, Atlanta, Boston, and Houston are phasing out diesel buses and switching to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses. CNG emits almost no toxic particles and significantly less smog- forming gases. Federal policy should applaud and encourage such environmentally beneficial measures, not provide funding for practices that sustain health hazards. The elderly and children residing in poor minority communities suffer the most from the environmental hazards of diesel fuel. Asthma is the most common cause of hospitalization for children and asthma related deaths of children have risen 78% from 1980 to 1993. In certain parts of Manhattan and the South Bronx in New York City, the child asthma rates are five times the national average. The use of federal taxpayer money to perpetuate such a public health risk is illogical and irresponsible. All available measures should be taken to better the quality of life in our cities, especially for our children. Enactment of the Cleaner Buses for Cleaner Cities Act would bring us one step closer to our goal.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, without this amendment, this bill opens the door to religious organizations requiring individuals to participate in a religious ceremony or to listen to sectarian proselytizing as a condition of participating in a federally funded program. That violates our Constitution and quite frankly is an abuse of government authority over families in need. No one has or should exclude religious institutions from performing good works or from receiving public funds to do so. But a religious organization should never be allowed using Federal funds to condition a meal for a homeless person or anger counseling for an abusive husband on participating in a religious ceremony or listening to a religious sermon and it should not be allowed to discriminate in employment on a religious basis using government funds. No one is talking about separating, totally separating church and State. But we are talking about keeping each in its proper sphere and not allowing government to help invade the religious sphere or religion invade the government's sphere. We are talking about preventing the sectarian strife that will come when the Methodists think they are getting half a percent too little and the Catholics half a percent too much of Federal funds. That is why we need this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that truth is the first casualty in war. It is also true that constitutional liberty can be a casualty of war. Certainly when it comes to the so-called war on drugs, we are very casual about sacrificing our liberties. Title VIII of this bill, the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act, empowers the President to designate people as ``significant foreign narcotics traffickers.'' Once designated, all property in the United States of such a person is seized. Any American who does any business with him can be jailed for 10 years and fined $10 million. All this without any criteria for such designation in the bill. All this without any evidence being necessary. No notice, no hearing, no opportunity to be heard, no protection for the innocent, and no judicial review. Even the Anti-terrorism Act of 1996 allows a group designated by the person as a foreign terrorist organization the right to challenge the designation in court. But not this bill. No judicial review. The President is given the powers of a pre-Magna Carta King of England to accuse and find guilty with no due process, no process at all, and no appeal. In 1951, the Supreme Court, in the case of Joint Anti-Fascist Committee vs. McGrath, said that the Fifth Amendment due process clause barred the government from condemning organizations as Communists without giving them notice and opportunity to be heard in their own defense. This title gives no notice, no opportunity to be heard, and no appeal. It is clearly unconstitutional and grossly subversive of the liberty for which this country stands and which we are sworn to uphold. It is a travesty that this very important and very dangerous title was rushed through this House without any hearings and without any committee review. This title alone richly merits the defeat of the entire conference report, and I will urge my colleagues to vote against the report because of this title.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) stated a moment ago that in title VIII of the bill, the rights of innocent persons are protected----

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution. The proponents of this resolution are attempting to corrupt medical research with the politics of abortion. They are attempting to stall proper research to save lives to gain political advantage. I am not surprised, but I am disappointed. The resolution is totally misleading, and that may in fact be its real purpose. Sale of body parts for profit, the resolution talks about. No one is going out selling body parts, arms, or legs for any purpose. Researchers do use stem cells and tissue samples from the earlier stages of fetal development to promote research for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease and diabetes and other serious medical conditions. This is potentially life-saving research that can save thousands and thousands of lives. It is intended to alleviate pain and suffering and to save lives. But we do in the talk about that, we talk about selling body parts, which does not happen. We talk about having abortions to generate body parts, which does not happen. And again, I agree with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). This is backwards. If the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) thinks that some foul stuff, as he put it, is going on, that some foul deeds are being committed, have an oversight hearing, look into it, find out the facts first. Do not declare the facts first and then investigate. We do that too often in this House these days, and this is a prime example of it. I do not think those foul things are happening. I think it is a concoction; I think it is propaganda to inflame debate to stop medical research into life-saving techniques. But if they are happening, let us find out; let us have a hearing. They will have a hearing. The gentleman says so. Fine. So why this resolution? This resolution is total demagoguery and ought to be rejected for the demagoguery it is. Let us have the hearings and find out the facts and then see what we ought to do, if anything. Facts first. Action later. Demagoguery not at all.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain my vote against H.R. 3075, the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act. This bill makes several important restorations of cuts that were made to the Medicare program in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. However, this bill also includes a provision that would hurt New York City's teaching hospitals and render meaningless the other positive measures in this bill. Mr. Speaker, America's hospitals are hurting and they need relief from the mammoth cuts made by the Balanced Act. I was one of the few lawmakers who voted against the Balanced Budget Act because I knew it would have these consequences. We should not be surprised that cutting over $200 billion from Medicare would cause the quality of care to suffer in many hospitals. In New York State alone, it has been estimated that hospitals have lost over $550 million so far and could face up to $3 billion more in cuts over 5 years without new legislation. H.R. 3075 would make a small, but important, down payment toward restoring those cuts. However, it is shameful that in the name of providing relief, this bill would create even more pain for New York. At the last minute, a provision was added to change the methodology by which Medicare reimburses teaching hospitals for their direct medical education costs from one based on actual cost to one based on national average costs. This would shift over $45 million a year from New York State, where costs are well above the national average, to other parts of the country. In my district alone, teaching hospitals would lose almost $12 million in the first five years this provision would be in effect. Teaching hospitals help train the next generation of physicians. It would be unwise to shortchange this investment for the future. It is unfortunate that this provision was inserted at the last minute during the final negotiations, from which Democrats were frozen out. In addition, H.R. 3075 was brought up under suspension of the rules, allowing little debate and no opportunity to offer an amendment to rectify the situation. America's hospitals need relief from the deep cuts made in 1997. I hope that we will find a way to do this without pitting states against each other.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the First Amendment on a very important victory. A Federal court has ordered the mayor of the city of New York and his administration to end its campaign to evict the Brooklyn Museum from its facilities over an exhibit that he and some others found offensive. This was not a serious challenge for the First Amendment, because it is clear to even students of the most basic constitutional law class that this case had no merit and was brought for entirely political reasons, though every once in a while it is nice to reaffirm that the First Amendment is as strong as ever. Mr. Speaker, the Bill of Rights is clear, the government may not interfere with the free expression of anyone. What the mayor and his administration attempted to do was censorship, pure and simple. The mayor tried to impose his own cultural tastes on the museum, and tried to hold it hostage to his demands that a particular exhibition would be withdrawn. If he had been victorious, it could have had a real chilling effect. But the First Amendment is stronger than the whims of elected officials. It has won yet again. Quoting from the said Federal court decision, ``There is no Federal constitutional issue more grave than the effort by government officials to censor works of expression and to threaten the vitality of a major cultural institution as a punishment for failing to abide by governmental demands for orthodoxy.'' This is a victory for the Brooklyn Museum, for the artistic community, a victory for the First Amendment, and for constitutional liberty.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition since I gather that both gentlemen from New York, Mr. Gilman and Mr. Crowley, are in support.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation which I believe possesses the threat of turning what Members of this House would consider a laudable goal, cracking down on drug dealers, into a much more dangerous enterprise. This bill allows the President or the FBI or the Treasury Department or the CIA to designate any person in the world as a drug kingpin, to seize his or her assets, and to make an average American subject to a decade in prison for doing business with such people. The bill sets no standards for such a designation. The designation requires no proof. The designation cannot, according to this bill, be challenged or reviewed by a court of law. There is simply no way provided to make the Government provide the proof we expect. It also appears to bar the family, the American families of any such individuals from entering the United States. Is this the America we want, an America in which the President or some Federal bureaucrat can simply designate someone as a bad guy and exclude American-born individuals from the country, and freeze the assets of anyone they desire, some of the assets which may be owed to law-abiding citizens? Can we really suspend all judicial review and say to hell with due process? What is the remedy if the bureaucracy gets the wrong person? It would have been nice to have had a hearing on this bill and to look at some of these questions in committee, but we did not. This bill was not reviewed by the Committee on the Judiciary or by the Subcommittee on the Constitution. It was rushed to the floor with no adult supervision, which seems to mark every aspect of Republican rule on Capitol Hill these days. Real people will have to live with this bill. We owe all Americans a duty to be careful and conscientious in the work we do, not to endow the executive with untrammeled power over individual liberty in order to make a statement. This bill is an embarrassment to this House and a danger to our freedoms. Constitutional liberty and due process are precious to this country. Millions of our citizens have fought and died for liberty. In the 1950s, the fear of Communism was used to justify invasions of our traditional liberties. The Supreme Court overturned some of those invasions. Now that international Communism is no longer a threat to us, fear of drugs is leading us down the same sad road to overturn our constitutional liberties, to overturn the due process that alone protects us and differentiates us from the Communist tyrannies we opposed. In the name of the war against drugs, we should not overturn liberty. How can we say that the President or some bureaucrat can designate anyone they want without any evidence, without any proof, without any standards, and say that person will have his property seized, that person can go to no court, can get no review, can confront no witnesses? The court of Star Chamber would have been ashamed, and this House should be ashamed and not pass this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, since this side ought to be represented in support also, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we seem to have a fact in this country that, if we declare something a war, some people think we can suspend the Constitution in order to fight that war. We did that, to our regret, with communism in the 1950s. We may have done that with terrorism. And now we are being asked to do that with the war on drugs. Yes, we must protect ourselves, in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s against potential Communist aggression, against terrorism, against the drug lords. But we must not destroy our liberty or our Constitution in doing so. We have done this in the past and we have regretted it. There is nothing that says we cannot crack down on these drug kingpins and allow them their day in court, that lets us seize the property but allow them to protest in court and have our traditional notions of due process. But this bill will not do that. This bill makes the President or the Secretary a dictator, a king. This bill says he can seize someone's property and you have no recourse. It goes against the fifth amendment and the 14th amendment, you cannot deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. This would make an American citizen who has any kind of dealing with someone that some bureaucrat thinks is a drug kingpin a criminal if that citizen has some dealing with him even if that citizen thinks that this person is perfectly innocent, and there is no opportunity in court to dispute whether that person is innocent or in fact a drug kingpin. That is not the American way. Yes, we should crack down on drugs; yes, we should protect ourselves, but we should not do so by eliminating all our Anglo-Saxon traditions of due process and fair play. Someone accused of a crime always is entitled to a day in court. Someone the President says is a drug kingpin is entitled to say in court, ``No, I'm not, you've got the wrong man.'' This bill goes against that. As I said, the people who passed Magna Carta would understand why this bill is pernicious and destructive of our Constitution and on our system of values in this country and why this bill should be rejected. Let me say one other thing. We never saw this bill in the Committee on the Judiciary. It has not been considered by the Committee on the Judiciary. I spoke to the Deputy Attorney General at 9 o'clock last night. He had never heard of it.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) put his finger on several of the aspects of this bill. He is quite right, we should not be jailing drug users for 20 and 30 years. Those are silly laws. And we should go after the drug kingpins, clearly. But then he said we should declare war against people who do not deserve the protection of the United States Constitution, unquote. Everybody deserves the protection of the United States Constitution, Mr. Speaker. Everybody who is in this country or has property in this country deserves the protection of the United States Constitution. That is the basis of constitutional liberty. Once we say that someone, no matter how heinous a criminal or vile a villain does not deserve due process of law, once we say that we can tear down the laws that we have erected for the protection of our liberties to get at the devil, then, as Sir Thomas More says, there is no protection for anybody. That is what this bill does. This bill says that if the President or the Secretary of the Treasury declares so-and-so a drug kingpin, we will seize that person's property, without any due process of law, without any hearing, without any evidence or without any proof. And he has no recourse. No lawyer on his behalf may go into court and say the Secretary's wrong; that they have the wrong person, there is no evidence he is a drug kingpin. Perhaps the President really designated him because he did not like his political views or he did not give a large enough campaign contribution, assuming some future villainous president. The fact is there has to be due process, no matter how vile the villain. We do not believe in lynch laws. We do not string up the rapist until after he has a fair trial. And this bill goes against this. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) said, ``They are guilty.'' Yes, the drug kingpins are guilty, but is the individual designated really a drug kingpin? Do we not need evidence; do we not need some due process? Again, in the name of wars, we often destroy liberty. In the name of the drug war, we are going further and further down a road to destroy the liberty that we hold so precious. This bill is a large step in that direction. Why does the bill say there shall be no judicial review of the designation or the determination by the President; because we do not trust the courts or because we want to cut corners, and getting a drug kingpin is more important than protecting our liberty? If we did not have that paragraph in this bill, if judicial review were allowed to people whose property is going to be seized because the President or the Secretary of State thinks they are a drug kingpin, maybe this bill would be defensible. But as it is, it is simply a bill that says let us tear up the Constitution, let us go back before the Magna Carta, the king is always right, no one can question him, the President is a king. This bill should not be passed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was incorrect in his statement to the bill. The bill says the determinations, identifications, findings, and designations made pursuant to, et cetera, shall not be subject to judicial review. Designating an individual as a significant foreign trafficker is not, under this bill, subject to judicial review. So the President or the bureaucrat has the absolute authority to say he is a foreign narcotics trafficker. If he thinks he is not, his lawyers in the United States cannot appeal it in court and no evidence is necessary. And that is simply, as was said before, un-American.

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Joint Resolution 46, to confer honorary veteran status upon Zachary Fisher. Zachary Fisher made his career in the construction business and contributed some of the most important buildings to the New York City skyline. But his passion was for the men and women who served this Nation in the military. He championed this cause up until his death earlier this year. Zack Fisher was unable to serve in the military himself because of a leg injury sustained in a construction accident, but he became perhaps this Nation's most devoted advocate for the armed forces. Throughout his life, he dedicated himself to causes that supported and honored the veterans and service members of the United States military. He served as honorary chairman of the board of directors of the Marine Corps Scholarship Foundation and the Coast Guard Foundation. He established the annual Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Award for Excellence in Military Medicine. He founded the Fisher House to build homes for families of hospitalized military personnel. He gave generously to numerous philanthropic organizations that aid service men and women. But perhaps his most important legacy was the creation of the Intrepid Museum Foundation. In 1978, he spearheaded an effort to save the battle-scarred aircraft carrier Intrepid from the scrap heap and turned it instead into the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum in 1982. Located on the Hudson River in my district, the Intrepid is a floating museum that hosts over 500,000 visitors each year of all ages and from all parts of the world. It educates thousands of school children each year and offers after-school and summer programs as well as vocational training and counseling. His tireless advocacy of causes related to the U.S. armed forces have earned him the Horatio Alger Award, the Presidential Citizens Medal, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our Nation's highest civilian honor. Mr. Speaker, Zachary Fisher gave his life giving to men and women who serve this Nation in the armed forces, even though he himself was not able it. I know of no better way to honor his memory than to confer upon him the status of honorary veteran. I myself consider myself privileged to have known him.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, for 50 years it has been ritualistic for American public officials in public bodies to affirm support and solidarity for NATO. We should remember why. NATO was formed as a protection against the possibility of a Soviet attack, armed attack, armed aggression, against Western Europe, and to bring the United States and Western Europe together as a defense alliance. That purpose and that danger no longer exists. NATO nonetheless has many other purposes, and they are properly delineated in this resolution. I must oppose this resolution nonetheless because of three paragraphs in it. The resolution states, ``approval for the membership of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in NATO and invites further enlargement of NATO from other former Warsaw Pact countries,'' and then says contradictorily, ``NATO should seek to strengthen its relations with Russia and Ukraine as its central partners in building long-term peace in the Euro Atlantic area.'' Madam Speaker, the Soviet Union no longer exists, but Russia is still a large nation and potentially a friendly one or potentially a dangerous one, and our policy should be directed at trying to enhance those forces within Russia, trying to transform that country into a democratic market economy, into a friendly country, into a responsible country, instead of doing what we can to provoke nationalistic forces, to provoke xenophobic forces, to provoke dictatorial forces in Russia. The expansion of NATO is a direct provocation to all segments of Russia's political spectrum; weakens the democratic forces; weakens the pro-market forces, weakens the pro-Western forces and strengthens the xenophobic and ultranationalistic forces. It is unnecessary, and it makes this world a more dangerous place. This resolution, were it not for those three paragraphs, would be worthy of support and with those three paragraphs it goes in the wrong direction and I urge its defeat.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, as I think a majority of the members of this House know, it is imperative for the safety of the citizens of this country and for the security of our children that we do something to crack down on the trafficking of guns. To discuss this further, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns).

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Interior Appropriations Conference Report. There are plenty of reasons to vote against this bill, from its anti- environmental riders to the dramatic cuts in the President's Land Legacy Initiative. But most distressing is that once again, in what has become an annual event, the Appropriations Committee has short-changed the National Endowment for the Arts of much-needed funding. The NEA suffered a 40% cut in funding in 1996 to $99.5 million and it has been cut even further to $98 million the last two years, the lowest appropriation to the NEA since 1977, over 20 years ago. The bill that passed the House in July maintained this level once more. As the nation is experiencing historic levels of prosperity, it is time to increase our commitment to the arts. And it seemed, just a few weeks ago, that we had taken a first step toward renewing this commitment. This House voted to instruct our conferees to accept the Senate's modest $5 million increase to bring NEA funding to $103 million. But once again, we have fallen short of our promises. Indeed, our own conferees ignored the wishes of this House and insisted on level funding for the third consecutive year. This is a snub to our colleagues as well as to the arts community. It is a tiny amount of money that we are talking about. A fraction of one percent of our entire federal budget. But these dollars yield dividends that far outweigh the investment. Throughout its thirty-year history, the National Endowment for the Arts has contributed to the tremendous growth of professional orchestras, non-profit theaters, dance companies, and opera companies throughout the country. The NEA helps support the non-profit arts industry which generates more than $36 billion of business annually, 1.3 million full-time jobs, and returns $3.4 billion in federal taxes every year. The NEA also supports arts education, which is essential in developing critical thinking skills such as reading, math, and science. It builds important workplace skills such as creative problem solving, allocating resources, team building, and exercising individual responsibility. Arts education programs also help to discover and train the next generation of artists. These programs will all suffer as a result of our shortsightedness. Let's remember that the NEA has an important impact on the arts throughout the country. The NEA stimulates the growth of local arts agencies and investment in the arts by state and local governments. Before the NEA, only five states had state-funded arts councils. Today, all 50 states do. Many of these local agencies have formed partnerships with local school districts, law enforcement, parks and recreation departments, chambers of commerce, libraries, and neighborhood organizations. Innumerable small towns and cities across America have benefited tremendously from federal investment in the arts. And the NEA has made special efforts to expand its reach into every community in this nation. The funding increase was to go to ensure that it had the resources to carry out this initiative. So, I hope that none of my colleagues will complain next year that their district received no grants from the NEA because it is their own fault that its reach will be stunted. Once more, the Republican leadership has worked to restrict the growth of the arts in America. And we cannot rely on private money to make up the shortfall when we withhold funding. In fact, since NEA funding is often matched by private organizations, when we withhold public dollars we stifle efforts to generate private donations. Mr. Speaker, the NEA is a crucial tool in building a vibrant arts community across the nation. We must do more for our artists and cultural institutions. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for the VA-HUD conference report. When the bill was debated on this floor, I offered two amendments. One would have restored funding for HOPWA, the Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS, to the level of the fiscal year 1999 budget which was provided for in the Senate bill, but was not provided for in the House bill. The HOPWA amendment was accepted by this body. Unfortunately, the second amendment which I offered which sought to increase funding for new Section 8 vouchers; that is, to provide funding for new Section 8 vouchers and increase the public housing operating fund was not accepted. I am happy that reason and compassion have prevailed in the conference report. The conference report provides $347 million to fund 60,000 new Section 8 housing vouchers and to increase the public housing operating fund. Furthermore, HOPWA's funding was increased by $7 million above the Senate level. The report will go a long way in assisting people with AIDS and assisting people in finding affordable housing to make the necessary repairs they so desperately need. We have not provided new Section 8 housing vouchers for over 2 years. The need for housing assistance remains staggering. Today, over 5 million low-income families pay more than 50 percent of their income for rent or live in severely substandard housing. Not one of these 5 million families receives any Federal housing assistance. Their needs are desperate and in this bill today, in this conference report, we have chosen to begin to address the severity of those needs; and that is progress. So again, I urge support of the VA-HUD conference report.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we are faced with an historic opportunity once again this year to pass legislation to combat violent hate crimes that continue to plague our country. Last year, despite the brutal killing of Matthew Shepard simply because he was gay, we failed to incorporate the Hate Crimes Prevention Act into a bill to fund the Justice Department. We must not make the same mistake again this year. In the year that followed Matthew Shepard's death, thousands of hate crimes were committed and Congress failed to protect gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender individuals and others from these heinous crimes. Tragically, we are all far too familiar with the violent acts of terrorism that are sweeping our country. The August 10 shooting of a Filipino-American letter carrier, shooting to death, three young children who were shot and two adults at the Los Angeles Jewish community center is one of a series of brutal hate crimes that continue to plague victims, families, communities and the Nation. These violent acts come on the heels of the July 4 shooting spree in Illinois and Indiana, and the burning of three synagogues in northern California. Congress has been far too slow in responding to the hate crimes that continue to threaten our communities all across America. Week after week we hear horror stories of murderers attacking innocent people because they are, or are perceived, to be members of a certain community, because they are of a particular ethnic group, or thought to be of a particular ethnic group, or race or color or creed or sexual orientation. These hate crimes devastate families and local communities and they also send a chill down the backs of everyone else that belongs to the same group. Remember, hate crimes are especially odious because they victimize more than just the individual victim, they also are acts of terrorism directed against an entire class of citizens. When a hate crime is committed, it sends a message to every member of the targeted group that they risk their lives simply by being a member of a targeted group. No American should have to be afraid to live in any community because they are threatened with violence because of who they are. We should instruct the conferees to accede to one version of the Senate language, to agree to add gender and disability and sexual orientation to the Federal hate crimes law. There is a necessity to do this in order so that we can give help to States that have their own hate crimes laws but need Federal assistance in investigating crimes. The Senate has already passed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act as an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary appropriations bill which is now in the conference committee. Over the summer, I organized a group of 62 other Members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats, to join together and urge the conferees to include the Hate Crimes Prevention Act in the final appropriations bill. I hope we are successful and that we can pass meaningful reform this fall. It is certainly within our grasp, but we need all the help we can get to urge other Members of the House and of the Senate to include this vital legislation, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, in the final version of the appropriations bill. We must all redouble our efforts to pass sensible hate crimes prevention legislation this year. We must continue our fight to protect American families from violent bigotry and from vicious acts of hatred. Our constituents and the citizens of this great country expect no less of us.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Norwood-Dingell bill and in opposition to the three substitutes that will be offered. This legislation will restore medical decisions to where they belong, to patients and their doctors. Mr. Chairman, quality health care should be the right of every American, but this principle seems to have been lost in recent years as more and more people have been forced into a managed care system in which HMOs are involved in a zero-sum gain. Every dollar not spent on health care is another dollar of profit for the HMO. Every incentive in the system is not to allow the specialist referral, not to allow the diagnostic tests, not to allow the treatment. The HMO has every incentive to overrule the doctor's judgment or to exert financial pressure on the exercise of that judgment, and they do so every day. Mr. Chairman, this destroys the confidence a patient should be able to have in his or her doctor's judgment and often causes unfavorable medical outcomes, avoidable deaths and suffering. The American people are crying out for reform, and this bill provides it. One of the most important provisions of this bill will prohibit an HMO from providing a financial incentive to doctors to limit treatment for their patients. It is wrong to put doctors into a conflict of interest situation between their medical judgment on the one hand and their pocketbooks on the other. I introduced a bill to prohibit this practice in 1993, and I am pleased that it has been incorporated into this bill. We have seen a lot of negative publicity surrounding this bill. The insurance industry has waged a campaign of misinformation. They claim this bill would open up a flood of lawsuits against employers, but anyone who takes the time to actually read the legislation will find that it is a balanced bill that protects the interests of employers, doctors, and patients. The greatest distortion concerns the liability provision. This provision says that whoever is directly responsible for making a decision that harms a patient must be held accountable for his or her action. If an HMO practices medicine, if it does so negligently, and withholds necessary medical care and the patient is hurt by this, the HMO should be liable to a malpractice lawsuit. This is a matter of simple justice. It is also the only effective way to deter withholding necessary medical care in order to save money. Every other person or corporation in this country is held responsible for the consequences of their actions, responsible at law if necessary. Why should HMOs be the only entities in this country not held responsible for the consequences of their actions at law? Contrary to what the insurance companies would have us believe, this bill would not open employers to liability if their involvement was simply to contract with a negligent HMO, nor would an employer who advocates on behalf of his or her employees be held responsible. This bill would eliminate the common HMO gag rules so that information can flow freely between doctors and their patients. It would ensure full access to clinical trials, greater choice of doctors and plans, continuity of care, access to services for women and access to emergency care and specialists, and it would hold insurance companies accountable for their decisions. It would go a long way toward ensuring that people have access to the treatment they need. We must not settle for less.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is foolish both in substance and in principle. Foolish in substance because the Brooklyn Museum receives little federal money, just a few grants for educational projects and touring exhibitions. Foolish in principle because it is not the place of this Congress to bar a cultural institution from receiving federal money just because we may not like one exhibit it has chosen to display. First, let's take a look at the substance of this debate. The Brooklyn Museum of Art, a well-respected institution that serves about half a million people each year is presenting an exhibition that has received acclaim internationally. This exhibit features the works of some of Britain's most popular artists. In fact, this exhibition drew the highest attendance of any contemporary art exhibit in London in 50 years. The most controversial pieces in the show are by Chris Ofili, a young British artist of Nigerian ancestry, who has won the Turner Prize, a prestigious award given to the most talented young British artists, and whose pieces have sold for tens of thousands of dollars. Whatever you may think of the subject matter, this is a serious exhibition of work by serious artists, displayed in a respected museum. Supporters of this resolution will claim that they believe in the right of these artists to show their work, but that American taxpayers should not have to pay for an exhibit like this. Well, let me point out very clearly, that the taxpayers are not paying for this exhibition. No federal money went to show this exhibit. Not a dime. The Brooklyn Museum receives federal money, but the money it receives goes directly to pay for educational initiatives and touring exhibitions. Do we want to cut off these worthy programs because we don't like one piece of art that the Museum has chosen to display? That would make no sense. So this resolution is foolish in substance. But this resolution is foolish, and I would say dangerous, in principle. What have we come to when the United States Congress is condemning an individual for exercising his right to free expression? I thought our book burning days were over. What's next? Will we be closing down our public libraries because they contain books that we don't like? I don't like every book in the library, but I'm glad they're there. Will we attack the libraries for having a copy of Mein Kampf, Hitler's autobiography, which offends people's sensibilities? Where does it end? This exhibit is shocking. It's outrageous. Art has been called a lot worse since the beginning of time. But that's the point of art. It's meant to provoke debate and discussion. Good art makes us confront our own cultural norms. Does this exhibit fit my own artistic tastes? Maybe not. But will I defend the right of artists to express themselves and the right of the museum to bring various kinds of artistic expression to the public? You bet. But, this is not about one exhibit. This is about whether you support free expression and creativity or not. If you support the first amendment, you find yourself fighting to the end to defend the rights of people you find offensive. We would set a very dangerous precedent here if we vote for this resolution. For the United States Congress to single out one museum and one artist as sacrilegious and then to hold the museum hostage to the tastes of the Gentlemen from New York as a condition of receiving federal funds is outrageous. Politicians should not be deciding what is art. We've debated in this House many times whether the federal government should be subsidizing art. I believe we should, and there are many who disagree. But if we do decide to subsidize art, as we have for over 35 years, we must do so without interfering in the content. If every arts institution must suddenly worry that their exhibitions will not satisfy the 435 art critics in the House of Representatives, it will create a chilling effect in the cultural world. Frankly, I'm disappointed in my colleagues from New York who are supporting this resolution. New York is the capital of the art world, where we have a tradition of respecting the free expression of artists. If you don't like this exhibit, protest it, boycott the museum. Best of all, stay home and don't see it. But you don't need a Congressional Resolution to express personal outrage. It is improper and outrageous and it should be defeated. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.