Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would, in effect, exempt from this bill and allow the existing laws governing class action lawsuits to continue to apply to cases brought against gun and ammunition manufacturers. We have spent months in this House debating how best to combat the rising tide of gun violence in this country, and we still have nothing to show for it. Week after week after week after week we hear horror stories from all over the country of mass murderers, of people walking into schools and churches and shops and opening fire on innocent people. How does the leadership of this House propose to address this problem? With this legislation that will actually protect gun makers from the consequences of their actions and will not protect the victims of gun violence. Mr. Chairman, guns kill almost twice as many Americans every year, as all other household and recreational products combined. Despite this grim fact, the gun industry is the last unregulated manufacturer of a consumer product. All other manufacturers are regulated, not the gun manufacturers. Currently, citizen lawsuits serve as practically the only safety regulation, if we can call it that, of the firearms industries. Lawsuits have been the only way to force manufacturers to make their guns safer. A 1995 class action suit against Remington Arms, which settled for $31.5 million, led to the implementation of greater safety protections for owners of shotguns. Look at what is happening all across the country. The victims of gun violence are beginning to sue gun manufacturers for their injuries as a consequence of the negligence of the gun manufacturers. Over 20 American cities, as well as the NAACP, have filed lawsuits against gun manufacturers to hold them accountable for the millions of dollars that the public sector must spend coping with the consequences of gun violence. Gun plaintiffs, like tobacco plaintiffs and others, must sue the gun manufacturers in class action lawsuits because suing as single plaintiffs is almost invariably prohibitively expensive. We should not handicap these important civil suits just as they are beginning. As my colleagues know, in addition to expanding Federal jurisdiction over class actions, this bill would give gun manufacturers a tremendous advantage in these cases by allowing them to remove these cases to Federal court. These cases are, of course, determined on the basis of State tort law. The Federal courts that would decide these cases are bound by Federal law to apply, not Federal law, but the State law. But the Federal courts are always going to be much more hesitant to expand the State law from previous decisions than the State courts will, because their expertise is Federal law, not State law. So by taking these cases from the State forum, where the States can apply and interpret their own laws, to a Federal forum, which are going to be more hesitant to interpret them in new ways and to realize the full implications of the law, we are saying to the defendants they have a much easier forum. To the plaintiffs, to the victims of gun violence, we are going to stack the decks against them. Now, I think this is a terrible bill in general for a lot of different reasons. But even assuming we want to pass this bill, why not just allow victims of gun violence to continue to bring their cases in State courts? Why bring them before a Federal judge who will have less expertise on the State law, will have to divert his or her attention from cases involving, for example, violence against women or access to clinic or multijurisdiction interstate cases? Are not our Federal judges busy enough? We know that the average case, if removed to Federal court, will take 6 to 8 years to reach trial; whereas, in most State courts, it will get there in a year or two. Gun victims often cannot wait that extra time. Do we really need the Federal courts to take on thousands of new cases for their dockets? We should support the victims of gun violence in their efforts to hold the firearms industry accountable when its products cause injury or death and when they are responsible through their negligence, because that obviously is something that has to be proven, when they were negligent and who they sell the guns to and making unsafe products and not putting safety standards or guns or whatever. When that can be proven, we should not stack the decks against the victims of gun violence by pushing this out of the local courts and into the Federal courts. Victims of gun violence, the American people, deserve comprehensive legislation to get the guns off the streets and protect our children in the schools and protect our people in our churches and day-care centers. They do not deserve this almost contemptuous treatment in which we say we are not doing anything to protect them, but we are going to make it harder for them if they are injured to prove the negligence of the gun manufacturers. We are going to make it more expensive. We are going to make it farther in time. We are going to make it farther in distance. We do not trust the State courts. We do not believe in States rights. We do not believe in local government despite the rhetoric on this floor. We think State courts are too generous to people. They know the people, the situation a little better than some far-off Federal court. So, therefore, let us move it to a far-off Federal court to make it harder for the plaintiffs in gun violence cases. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, if we are going to pass this malevolent bill, at least let us exempt from it cases alleging negligence resulting in violence to victims of gun violence. We should not make it easier for the malefactors of the gun industry. We should make it harder. I urge the adoption of this amendment.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill. Now, as a general idea, I do not think it is a good idea to have specific carve-outs from legislation. But if we are going to enact egregious legislation, then we can mitigate the damages in the most obvious situations. And for the gentleman on the other side who got up and said it is terrible, we should not carve out, let me read some of the carve-outs supported by the Republicans for similar legislation. The Biomaterials Access Insurance Act of 1997 passed into law and carves out an exception for breast implant lawsuits. It also carves out an exception for lawsuits by health care providers. In the 104th Congress, the Common Sense Product Liability Legal Reform Act carved out an exception from the bill's provisions for lawsuits for commercial losses. This very bill carves out an exception from the bill's provisions for lawsuits for commercial losses. The Senate version of a similar bill, S. 2236, had specific carve- outs for negligence actions involving firearms or ammunitions in negative entrustment actions. So, Mr. Chairman, the real issue is not should there be carve-outs, because the people on the other side sponsoring this legislation have supported carve-outs. Indeed, this bill contains a carve-out. The question is which carve-outs. And I would submit that if this bill is going to carve out an exception for lawsuits brought under the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as well as corporate government actions, all of which are carved out of this bill, we can carve out an exception so as not to rip the lawsuits started by States and local governments and individuals in class actions out of the State courts into Federal courts for gun manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers when they can prove negligence resulting in death or injury. The question, as I said, is not are carve-outs a good idea. The question is, as long as we are going to have carve-outs and pass legislation in this bill, should gun manufacturers be subject to carve- outs they do not want, or should we only carve out protections for people accused of violations of securities laws.

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to put this debate into a little perspective. When the United States became independent, when our Constitution was adopted, there were many skeptics who said that our new system of government would not last, a republican form of government, a democratic form of government. There had been many republics and democracies in the past and in antiquity, in Middle Ages, but they had not lasted. They all, every single one of them, degenerated into oligarchies or autocracies. Skeptics said this new democratic republic would not last, either. There have been two greatest tests of our democratic system. In the Civil War, because of slavery, Lincoln quite correctly characterized it as a test of whether a government of the people, by the people, and for the people could survive. Now we face a second great test, the increasing domination of our politics by big money. People are cynical, and rightly so. They believe that their participation, their voices, cannot count against the power of big money, and recent experience says they are right. We all know the power of the HMOs, the pharmaceutical companies. We watched this Congress pass a $50 billion giveaway to big tobacco companies. We gave away, not sold, not rented, gave away a $70 billion spectrum to the broadcasting companies. Why? Because of the power of big money. That power has corrupted both major political parties, and if we do not stop it, if we do not take this step, Shays-Meehan is the first step towards shopping it, when the histories are written, they will say the United States had a good 200-, 250-year run with democracy, and then it degenerated into an oligarchy and not a democratic system. We must begin to stop it now. We must pass Shays-Meehan. We must reject the trickery and the conniving of the Republican leadership in putting all these procedural obstructions in its path. If we want democratic government to survive into the next millenium, this is the time to start saying so today.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Motion to Instruct Conferees and to condemn the violence raging in East Timor. Sadly, on what should have been a joyous occasion, the free and democratic decision of the people of East Timor to become independent, violence erupted, and brought tragedy instead. The stories we have heard from this region are heartbreaking--homes burned, young people shot and dumped in the sea, massacres by machete. The brutal tactics of anti-independence militias and members of the Indonesian military are truly horrific. Of course, our hearts go out to the people of East Timor for all they have endured. However, our sympathy is not enough. We must take action to ensure that such violence will not continue. The government in Indonesia has been slow to bring an end to the violence in East Timor. President Habibie has finally agreed to allow an international peacekeeping force to enter East Timor and restore order. However, this alone will not do. Of course, I believe that we must supply humanitarian aid to the region, but we should discontinue our programs of military and economic assistance pending resolution of this crisis. while this motion to instruct conferees would not completely cut off military aid to Indonesia, it is an important first step. we must send a message that such violence is unacceptable and will not be rewarded with continued assistance. On a personal note my constituent Alan Nairn, a journalist reporting on the situation in East Timor, was captured last night by the Indonesian military police. I have been working hard to ensure his immediate release and am hopeful that he will emerge unharmed. I have closely monitored the situation in East Timor for years, and have consistently called upon the Administration to take bold steps to protect human rights and support the people of East Timor. I have long urged the United Nations to take an active interest in the plight of the East Timorese. In addition, I have called for International Military Education Training funding to be cut to Indonesia and I have opposed the sale of F-16 fighter planes to that nation on account of its poor human rights record. The tragedy in East Timor has touched us all. I urge this House and the Clinton Administration to do all that it can to end the hostilities and ease the suffering of those in East Timor. I urge the adoption of this motion.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, in 1907, a group of women in the Brownsville/East New York section of Brooklyn, concerned about the health and well-being of their elderly neighbors, joined together to organize the Brooklyn Ladies Hebrew Home for the Aged. In 1913, the name of the institution was changed to the Brooklyn Hebrew Home for the Aged, and a year later the first Home for the Aged opened and the first residents were admitted. The total capacity, 70 residents. Concurrent with the increased demand for services, the Home grew steadily over the years until, in 1968, it became an affiliated agency of the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies and was formally renamed Metropolitan Jewish Geriatric Center (MJGC). To more precisely convey its mission, MJGC is now known as the Metropolitan Jewish Geriatric Foundation--an organization that provides financial support for the 36 participating agencies and programs of Metropolitan Jewish Health System (MJHS). Collectively, MJHS agencies and programs serve the health care needs of more than 20,000 chronically ill people. MJHS is acknowledged to be the premiere integrated health care delivery system serving the Greater New York Metropolitan Area. The Adult Day Health Center; the Phyllis and Lee Coffey Boro Park Primary Care Center; the Hospice of Greater New York; the Jewish Hospice; Caregivers; the Center for Rehabilitation and Transitional Care; Elderplan, a Social/Health Maintenance Organization; and the Institute for Applied Gerontology, which is engaged in research, education, and service, are but a few of the programs and services in the MJHS consortium. And while MJHS applies its knowledge and experience toward serving patients of all ages, it has not lost sight of the mission of its founders nearly a century ago. The Phillip and Dora Brenner Pavilion in Boro Park and Shorefront Jewish Geriatric Center Weinberg Pavilion in Coney Island together provide comprehensive health care, social-support and recreational and cultural services and programs for some 1,000 residents and patients. Both are part of the ``continuum of care'' that is the hallmark of Metropolitan Jewish Health System. On September 7th, at the Waldorf-Astoria, the Metropolitan Jewish Geriatric Foundation held its Annual Gala Dinner, an event that celebrated 92 years of service to the community, and paid a well- deserved tribute to Mark L. Goldstein, immediate past chairman of MJHS and a distinguished community leader. The event also honored Arletha Andrews, Herman Frazier, Pastor Roman, Murray Scherer, Willie Simpkins, and Gene Simpkins, each of whom has given dedicated service as an employee of an MJHS participating agency for 35 years or more. MJHS excels not only in the quality and scope of its care programs; it is recognized also for its vision, its innovative spirit, and the skill, the dedication and the compassion of all those involved in meeting patients' health care needs. If past is prologue, I am confident that MJHS will continue to burnish its leadership role, with the support of MJGF, record even more impressive accomplishments in the service of the community in the new millennium.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I hold no brief for terrorism. I hold no brief for the actions of the FALN. I do not think arguments about the status of Puerto Rico, whether it is a colony or not, are relevant to this discussion. Whether Puerto Rico is a colony or not does not justify people to engage in armed revolt. All of that is irrelevant. What is relevant, and what I want to talk about for a moment, is the rule of law. The rule of law says an individual should be sentenced by the court for the crimes they are convicted of. The rule of law says that people convicted of the same crimes, more or less, should be sentenced to more or less the same sentences. The rule of law says that before the Congress passes resolutions commenting on a particular criminal case it should know the facts and should hold hearings first and then have the resolution, not the other way around. This resolution, frankly, is an outrage. It borders on a bill of attainder. Technically it is not, but it borders on it. This bill makes many questionable statements of fact: ``Whereas the Federal Bureau of Prisons reportedly based its decision in part on the existence of audio recordings indicating that some of the 16 have vowed to resume their violent activities upon release from prison.'' Well, are those audio recordings in existence or not? Certainly makes a difference. Reportedly? We do not know. Let us have a hearing and find out first before we do this. ``Whereas the release of terrorists is an affront to the rule of law.'' These people were not condemned as terrorists. They were condemned for the crimes of seditious conspiracy and weapons possession. I am told that the normal sentence for those crimes is about 10 years. They were sentenced to 90 years. The contention is made that they were sentenced to lengths of time far in excess of what people normally convicted of these crimes are sentenced to. Remember, they were not convicted of bombing anybody, planning to bomb anybody, murdering anybody. If they did it, they got away with it because that could not be proved. Maybe somebody else did it. They have to be judged and sentenced and treated on the basis of what they were convicted of. That is the rule of law. If the President believed that the interest of justice called for clemency because they had been sentenced far in excess of the normal sentence for their crimes for which they were convicted, that is his privilege as President to make that decision. It is all our privileges to agree or disagree and to criticize him severely as individuals. Congress, to my knowledge, has never passed a resolution condemning the exercise of the pardon or commutation power of a president. Congress did not pass a resolution condemning President Ford for pardoning President Nixon for any crimes he may have committed. Congress did not pass a resolution condemning President Bush for pardoning Secretary of Defense Weinberger 12 days before he was to go on trial for multiple felony indictments. It is wrong for Congress to intrude itself in an individual case. Congress was right not to get into that. Many people were very critical of those presidents, and maybe they were right to be critical. And maybe people are right to be very critical of President Clinton for this. But it is wrong for Congress to pass a resolution on an individual criminal case, and on the exercise by the President of his clemency or pardoning power. And it is certainly wrong to do so before we have the facts and before we have the hearings. This resolution, for instance, says, ``Whereas the State Department in 1998 reiterated two long-term tenants,'' I assume that should be tenets, not landlord-tenants, ``of counterterrorism policy that the United States will make no concessions to terrorists and strike no deals; and bring terrorists to justice for their crimes,'' as well. What that means is that we do not make concessions in negotiations with terrorists before we catch them and try them and punish them. It does not mean that we do not commute a sentence 20 years later. These people have served 16, 18 years in jail. If people are normally sentenced to 10 or 15 years for the crimes these people were convicted of, that is what they should serve. It is not being soft on anybody. On terrorists? These people were not convicted of terrorism. We should adhere to the elementary rule of law that individuals should be convicted and should serve the time that the sentencing commission guidelines and the law says is appropriate for the crime an individual is convicted of. The President says these people were sentenced way beyond what people convicted of their crimes normally are. If he is right, if that is correct, then he was justified in his clemency. If he is not correct, then he was not. We do not have the facts, and we should adhere to the rule of law and not pass a resolution intruding into the criminal justice process, as Congress has never done before in the history of this country. We should not set such a precedent. Let us individually criticize the President if we think it justified. But Congress should not overstep its bounds. And if it were going to, it should have the hearings and get all the facts first, not act on the basis of political gamesmanship. Let me say one other thing. The motivation for this: Twenty minutes of debate on each side, no amendments, no hearings, no committee action. Why is this being rushed? For political reasons, to embarrass the President and the First Lady, who is considering running for the Senate in New York. It demeans the Congress to act on this political basis. I do not think this had anything to do with the campaign, and I do not even want to talk about that. But the fact is that is why action is being rushed. That is why we are doing this resolution before we do hearings and find out what really happened, find out what the facts really are, come in and say what does the statute say, what are the sentencing guidelines, what are other people convicted for these similar crimes sentenced to, what are the normal lengths of time served, what are the circumstances, why did the President recommend this? And then we can make an intelligent judgment, not in haste. We did not hear about this resolution until yesterday. No committee action. No committee consideration. No hearings. No facts. Just jumped to conclusions. We heard a lot on this floor last year and in the Committee on the Judiciary about the rule of law. This makes a mockery of it.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), for joining me in offering this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would restore $10 million to the housing opportunities for persons with AIDS, or HOPWA program. This does not represent new funding but seeks merely to maintain last year's funding level. The HOPWA program, which enjoys wide bipartisan support, is the only federal housing program that provides cities and States with the resources to address specifically the housing crisis facing people with AIDS. Currently, HOPWA is helping nearly 75,000 people in over 41,000 housing units. These people live in over 100 communities across 37 States, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Mr. Chairman, individuals with AIDS are living longer and more productive lives. According to a new report, AIDS deaths have fallen dramatically in recent years from roughly 50,000 4 years ago to 17,000 last year. We owe these encouraging statistics to new and effective drug therapies. We have made great strides in the treatment but most of these therapies require a stable living environment. They usually involve a strict regime built around regular meals and a regular schedule. Medication must be refrigerated and often must be taken on a rigid time stable. HOPWA provides a stable housing situation in which individuals can get the treatment they need and can have the regularity in their lives and their schedules that they need. To deny this to people living with AIDS would be an unacceptable cruelty. As the success of HOPWA grows, so too does the need for funding. Nine new communities joined HOPWA in 1999. At least five more are expected to do so in 2000. Add to these figures the 40,000 new AIDS cases each year and available funding will be spread even thinner. As I said, funding for this program ought to be increased but at the very least it should not be cut below existing levels. As for the offset, this amendment would cut $10 million from the $246 million appropriation for the National Science Foundation's Polar and Antarctic Research Fund, a very small reduction. I should note that there are 12 other agencies that also support antarctic research so we would not be greatly hindering this research. With this amendment, we would do minimal damage to long-term research goals while significantly improving the lives of individuals with AIDS who desperately need our help now. I urge the adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for his support. I simply want to add again that the funding in the offset is $246 million plus 12 other agencies doing Antarctic research. This is taking $10 million from that for keeping the existing level of funding for HOPWA in the face of the greatly increased need. With more and more communities coming into the program, and seeking funds from the Federal Government, I would hope we can have bipartisan support, thorough bipartisan support, for voting for the amendment as we do for the sponsorship of the amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I want to make two brief points. One, we are not talking about level funding. It may be level with the House vote last year, but the omnibus bill this House voted for and the President signed provided $10 million more than this bill would do this year. So we are being asked to decrease funding by $10 million from the current level. Cities and States will get less than last year, and that makes no provision for the increasing, not level, number of people with AIDS who need this help and for the additional communities supplying to the program every year. The second point is, of course, we must continue our Antarctic research, but this bill does not reduce this program. The bill increases this program for Antarctic research by $1 million. The amendment would reduce the recommended appropriation by $10 million or $9 million less than last year, a reduction from last year of 3.6 percent, and do not forget there are 12 other Federal pots of money for antarctic research. The choice before the House therefore is this. Should we reduce the funding for housing for people with AIDS by $10 million from last year, or should we reduce by $9 million from last year, 3.6 percent, one of the 13 Federal Antarctic research programs? That is the choice. I hope the choice is obvious. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Before I begin, I would like to thank my colleague from Connecticut, Mr. Shays, and my colleague from New York, Mr. Crowley, for joining me in offering this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores $10 million to the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS, or HOPWA, program. This does not represent new funding, but seeks merely to maintain the FY 99 funding level. The HOPWA program, which enjoys wide bipartisan support, is the only federal housing program that provides cities and states with the resources to address specifically the housing crisis facing people living with AIDS. Among the services that HOPWA delivers are rental assistance, mortgage assistance, help with utility payments, information on low-income housing opportunities, as well as technical support and assistance in acquiring, constructing, rehabilitating, and operating community residences. It is a locally controlled program that provides maximum flexibility to states and communities to design and implement the strategies that best respond to local housing needs. Its administrative costs are capped by law to ensure that the maximum amount of funding goes directly to the people who need it. Currently, HOPWA is helping nearly 75,000 people in over 41,000 housing units. These people live in over 100 communities across 37 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. This is a well-run, far-reaching, and successful program. Mr. Chairman, individuals with AIDS are living longer and more productive lives. According to a new report, AIDS deaths have fallen dramatically in recent years, from roughly 50,000 in 1995 to 17,000 in 1998. We owe these encouraging statistics to new and effective drug therapies. We have made great strides in the treatment of HIV/AIDS, but most of these therapies require a stable living environment. They usually involve a strict regimen built around regular meals and a regular schedule. Often, medication must be refrigerated and taken on a rigid time schedule. HOPWA provides a stable housing situation in which individuals can get the treatment they need. To deny this to people living with AIDS, would be an unacceptable cruelty. Inadequate housing is not only a barrier to treatment, it puts people with HIV/AIDS at risk of premature death from exposure to other diseases, poor nutrition, and stress. The majority of AIDS patients are at or below 20 percent of the median income and at any given time, one- third to one-half of all Americans with AIDS are either homeless or in imminent danger of losing their housing. HOPWA answers this need, successfully providing suitable, reasonably priced housing for thousands of Americans fighting AIDS. As the success of HOPWA grows, so too does the need for funding. Nine new communities joined HOPWA in 1999 and at least five more are expected to join in the year 2000. Add to these figures the 40,000 new AIDS cases report each year and available funding will be spread even thinner. As I said, funding for this program ought to be increased, but at the very least, it should not be cut below existing levels. As for the offset, this amendment would cut $10 million from the $246 million appropriation for the National Science Foundation's Polar and Antarctic Research Fund--a small reduction. I should note that there are 12 other agencies that support Antarctic research, so we would not be greatly hindering this research. I am a great supporter of scientific research, and it is not easy for me to suggest scaling back any work in this area. However, under our budget rules, there must be an offset, and it comes down to a matter of priorities. With this amendment, we would do minimal damage to long-term research goals, while significantly improving the lives of individuals who need our help now. I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would add $200 million to provide section 8 vouchers for 32,000 additional families and would further provide an additional $105 million for the Public Housing Operating Fund to help our public housing authorities to maintain the safe, decent housing that is in such short supply. The underlying bill reneges on our national commitment to provide decent, affordable housing to those families who cannot afford market rents and specifically fails to fulfill the promise that this Congress made to poor families in the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1988. In that act, we authorized 100,000 new section 8 vouchers for fiscal year 2000. But the bill provides no funding for any of these authorized vouchers. In addition, the bill provides no increase above last year's funding level, denying the administration's $185 million requested increase for public housing authorities to make necessary repairs that are desperately needed in public housing in this country. Families in need will suffer under this bill for lack of these funds. The need for housing assistance remains staggering. Over 5 million low-income families pay more than 50 percent of their incomes for rent or live in severely substandard housing. The Federal Government does not do enough to assist these families whose needs are desperate. Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke eloquently in 1944 of the fact, and I quote, ``True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men.'' FDR was right. Every family deserves a decent home, or perhaps we no longer believe this to be true. President Roosevelt's commitment to provide decent, safe, affordable housing to those who could not afford the rents in the private market through no fault of their own continued through both Republican and Democratic administrations. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Bush all to some degree continued that commitment. Two years ago, the majority in this Congress decided to break that commitment. For the first time since the program began, no money at all was provided for new section 8 vouchers. I challenge anyone to argue that tenant-based section 8 vouchers and public housing do not achieve their goals. Over a million families receive section 8 vouchers. Section 8 allows families to enter the private housing market and choose where they want to live, helping them to escape from the cycle of poverty and creating better income mixes throughout our communities. Thanks to section 8, families can afford decent, safe housing, nothing extravagant, and frankly sometimes not very nice at all, but much better than without the section 8. Millions of Americans reside in public housing. Public housing should not be synonymous with dilapidated housing. This amendment will allow 32,000 additional families to afford safe, decent housing through additional section 8 vouchers. It is not asking for much. I only ask that today we commit to meet less than 1 percent of the need for affordable housing in our Nation. Second, the $105 million this amendment would provide for housing maintenance will not fix all the physical problems in public housing units, but it is at least a start. This amendment would fund less than a third of the authorized 100,000 new section 8 vouchers, but that, too, is a start. Mr. Chairman, it is shameful that so many Americans must continue to live in dilapidated and unsafe housing while the country is in the midst of prolonged economic prosperity. The money for this amendment would be found by reducing the Space Station allocation. But, nonetheless, the Space Station would still receive in this fiscal year over $2 billion. If history is to look back on this Congress as a decent Congress, we must provide for adequately housing our people. Let us continue the legacy of FDR and of this great Nation. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. No one claims that public housing or Section 8 solves poverty. What Section 8 does, which is what we are talking about here, is to enable people, working people for the most part who are making minimum wage and who cannot afford decent housing in the open market, to afford decent housing. And that is a very elementary and human thing to do, and it is an obligation of ours to do. The other part of this amendment is to provide a little more money to enable the public housing authorities to stop the existing public housing from falling apart for lack of maintenance. And that too is at least as important as the space station.

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Yes, but the NSF research at $246 million allocated for this, earmarked for this program, so it comes from this earmark and from nowhere else, and therefore the figures that I just gave, which is that this earmark out of that total appropriation is an earmark of $1 million greater than last year; what we are proposing here is to reduce that by $10 million, a reduction of $9 million from last year, 3.6 percent of one of the 13 Federal Antarctic programs in order to provide level funding from last year for people, for housing for people with AIDS so we do not throw people out on the street, and I think the choice should be clear, and I thank the gentleman again for yielding.

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

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

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, Pericles said, while speaking at a funeral for fallen soldiers, ``If our country should appear great to you, remember that her glories were purchased by brave and valiant men, by men who knew their duty.'' I rise today to honor one such man, Private Harry H. Margolis. Pvt. Margolis was born on September 8, 1913, and died 30 years later in France during World War II. When he began his active service 10 months earlier, he left behind in New York his wife Isobel, their 17-month-old son Harvey, and his parents. Many years later, Pvt. Margolis' son began to wonder if his father should have been awarded a medal for his sacrifice that day in 1944. His mother then called my office in response to her son's inquiry. Now, exactly 55 years and 1 day after Pvt. Margolis perished at the Battle of St. Louis, he has been awarded the Purple Heart. He has finally received the recognition he so richly deserves and his family can rest assured that the United States of America is deeply grateful for the life that was given in her name on July 11th, 1944. Such glorious gifts will never be forgotten.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize one of New York City's premier cultural institutions, the Museum of African Art, and to invite my colleagues to visit the Museum over the August recess. Founded in 1984, the Manhattan-based Museum is the only independent museum in the United States devoted exclusively to historical and contemporary African art. The Museum for African Art is dedicated to increasing public understanding and appreciation of African art and culture. Through exhibitions and catalogues of the highest aesthetic and scholarly merit, the Museum offers definitive research and scholarship on African cultural groups and their regional influences. The Museum provides thematic comparison and exploration of artistic ideas reflected in the great variety of cultures in Africa, innovative methods of display and interpretation of African art to involve audiences directly in the exhibition process, and programs that stimulate lifelong learning and appreciation of African art and culture. In April 1999, the Museum opened a groundbreaking exhibition entitled ``A Congo Chronicle: Urban Art and the Legend of Patrice Lumumba.'' Consisting of 50 paintings by famed African artist Tshibumba Kanda- Matulu and several other urban artists of the time, this exhibition offers a uniquely personal encounter with the African independence movement as it was born and took hold among the population. African art aficionados are looking forward to the September unveiling of the exhibit, Liberated Voices: Contemporary Art from South Africa. Featuring close to 100 works, including paintings sculptures, installations, photographs, and videos made since Apartheid ended in 1994. This exhibition highlights major trends in contemporary South African artistic practice. The exhibit will focus on the diverse works of young artists in today's South Africa. Through their personal experiences Museum visitors will gain a greater insight into this dynamic country. Mr. Speaker, the Museum for African Art is a unique resource. I hope all of my colleagues will have the opportunity to visit the Museum to learn more about African art and its influence and significant contributions to our culture and society.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to eliminate the proposed draconian 53 percent cut in the appropriations for Legal Services. Legal Services Corporation makes a real difference in the lives of those low-income Americans who need legal representation. Without the Legal Services Corporation, we would truly have the best legal rights that money can buy. It is bad enough that we have failed to enact campaign finance reform, so that Will Rogers' quip that we have the best government money can buy has more than a slight ring of truth. Without Legal Services, only those with money would have any real chance of finding justice in our courts. There may be Members of this House who do not worry about the ability of low-income people to receive basic Legal Services. The annual assault on Legal Services Corporation would suggest that this is the case. In fact, the Legal Services Corporation does the opposite of what the money-driven politics which too often tends to rule this House these days would command. The Legal Services Corporation helps the poor and powerless assert their rights against the wealthy and powerful. It represents tenants against landlords, it represents victims of toxic pollution against corporate polluters, it represents those who have suffered discrimination against those who discriminate, it represents victims of domestic violence against those who perpetrate domestic violence. No wonder it is so unpopular. But, Mr. Chairman, the poor, just like the wealthy, should be entitled to fair legal representation. A right without a ability to enforce it legally is not meaningful. If any Member of this House had a dispute or a legal problem, he or she would seek out the best legal services he or she could afford or could raise the money to afford. So there is a general recognition that to have meaningful rights, you need competent legal representation in this society. In criminal proceedings, that need is so obvious that the Constitution requires publicly funded counsel. But that requirement has not been deemed to extend to protection of rights outside the criminal court, to family court, housing court or civil court. That is the job of Legal Services. We are not forced by the Constitution to do this, but simple decency and a commitment to equal justice under law should be enough. It was enough for President Nixon and for the bipartisan coalition that brought Legal Services into being and it should be enough now. Some have argued that Legal Services Corporation has failed to live up to Congress' expectations for record keeping and accounting. Some have argued there is some waste and fraud and even abuse in Legal Services. I believe the wild claims that LSC is wasting or misusing large sums of taxpayers' money bear little relation to reality. But imagine if we applied the sort of rigorous accounting rules and this reasoning, the kind of reasoning we heard from the last speaker, to some other programs, like, for instance, the Defense Department. No one has ever suggested that because there is obviously waste, fraud and abuse in the Pentagon, we should abolish the defense budget, zero out the defense budget. That would be absurd. Mr. Chairman, there is incredible cynicism in this country. The newspapers, the press have pointed out that the polls show that people feel that government responds to the rich and the powerful, that we do not particularly care about what ordinary people think. There is substantial truth to this. Who gets their phone calls returned from Congress or the executive branch more quickly, the ordinary voter or the $100,000 contributor? The answer is obvious. That is bad enough in the legislative and executive branches. Only the Legal Services Corporation prevents this from also being true in our courts of law, in the judicial branch, too. We must adopt this amendment to protect the honesty and the integrity of the judicial branch and to protect the faith of our citizens and the fact that if they are hauled before the judicial branch, if they need the services of the judicial branch and if they cannot afford legal representation on their own, they will have the ability to have fair representation. This amendment must be passed to protect the integrity and the honesty and the due regard of our people for the judicial branch of government and for what we claim to be our regard for equal justice under law. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the DeGette amendment to strike the ban on abortion funding for women in Federal prison. This ban is cruel, unnecessary, and unwarranted. Mr. Chairman, a woman's sentence should not include forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term. Most women in prison are poor, have little or no access to outside financial help, and earn extremely low wages from prison jobs. Inmates in general work 40 hours a week and earn between 12 to 40 cents per hour. They totally depend on the health services they receive from their institutions. Most female prisoners are unable to finance their own abortions, and, therefore, are in effect denied their constitutional right to an abortion. Many women prisoners are victims of physical or sexual abuse and are pregnant before entering prison. In addition, they will almost certainly be forced to give up their children at birth. Why should we add to their anguish by denying them access to reproductive services? We ought to keep this debate in perspective. We are not talking about many women. Statistics show that in fiscal year 1997, of the approximately 8,000 women in Federal prison, only 16 had abortions, and there were only 75 births. So this is a small group of people, and we should understand that as we continue this debate. The ban on abortions does not stop thousands of abortions from taking place; rather, it places an unconstitutional burden on a few women facing a difficult situation. Mr. Chairman, a prison sentence must not include forcing a women to carry a child to term. I know full well that the authors of this ban would take away the right to choose from all American women if they could, but since they are prevented from doing so by the Supreme Court (and the popular will of the American people who overwhelmingly support choice) they have instead targeted their restriction on women in prison--women in prison, who are perhaps the least likely to be able to object. Well watch out America. After they have denied reproductive health services to all women in prison, all Federal employees, all women in the armed forces, and all women on public assistance, then will once again try to ban all abortions in the United States. And they won't stop there. We know that many anti-choice forces want to eliminate contraceptives as well. It is a slippery slope that denies the realities of today, punishes women, and threatens their health and safety. This radical agenda must be stopped now. I urge my colleagues to support the DeGette amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, today we are debating an amendment that has no business in this appropriations bill. the Barr amendment will continue the unprecedented assault on the democratic process. As many of my colleagues know, a provision that was inserted into last year's D.C. appropriations bill included a section that prohibited the District of Columbia from spending any funds to count and certify the results of a voter referendum, Measure 59, held last November. The voters cast their ballots on whether the local law should permit the medical use of marijuana. Those ballots sit uncounted and uncertified because the Barr amendment. The cost of the District using its own funds to count and certify the results is literally a few dollars, but the Barr amendment has forced the Federal Government to incur substantial litigation costs defending last year's decision against letting the voters be heard on a local issue. This is absurd and this amendment should be rejected on its face. Why are some in this Congress so intent on impeding the democratic process in the District of Columbia? Mr. Chairman, this amendment would bar the government of the District from using any federal funds to assist any medical marijuana program. That is what this amendment is about. In addition, because the amendment would bar the District from using local funds to ``enact or carry out any law, rule or regulation'' that reduces penalties for any Schedule I substance or THC derivative, this will threaten existing programs like the availability of Marinol, a THC derivative, which is used to treat patients suffering with HIV/AIDS. Mr. Chairman, the citizens of the District have spoken and have decided that marijuana should be used for medicinal purposes. This is another attempt by the gentleman from Georgia to interfere with District citizens, who are, after all, only exercising one of the few democratic rights that Congress has allowed them--the right to vote on initiatives and referenda. Mr. Chairman, medical studies demonstrate that in some cases marijuana has proven effective in treating pain and discomfort for patients, especially those that are undergoing chemotherapy. The medical use of marijuana is a public health issue; it is not part of the war on drugs. Once again, marijuana has been proven to relieve the pain and suffering of seriously ill patients. It is unconscionable to deny an effective medication to those in need. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out for the record that former Speaker Gingrich and the distinguished chairman of our own Crime Subcommittee once agreed with medicinal use of marijuana. in 1981, Representative Newt Gingrich and Representative Bill McCollum, cosponsored H.R. 4498, a bill introduced by the late Congressman Stuart McKinney, that would have allowed the medicinal use of marijuana. In 1985, Chairman mcCollum again cosponsored H.R. 2282, a bill reintroduced by Congresswoman McKinney, which would have allowed the medicinal use of marijuana. I, along with many others, would be very interested to learn why our colleagues changed their minds. Mr. Chairman, many states have held state referenda on the use of medical marijuana. Two states, California and Arizona, have successfully passed legislation to allow the prescribed use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. The voters of these states have spoken and in our democratic system they must be respected. Mr. Chairman, although the Congress exercises oversight over the District, we should not micromanage it. We should trust the citizens of the District and their elected officials to manage and implement policies that benefit the District and its residents. Finally, Mr. Chairman, permitting the medical use of marijuana to alleviate the pain and suffering of people with seriously ill conditions does not send the wrong message to children or anyone else. It simply states that we are compassionate and intelligent enough to respect the rights of patients and the medical community to administer what is medically appropriate care. It is time for this Congress to acknowledge that a ban on the medicinal use of marijuana is scientifically, legally, and morally wrong.