Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the evidence is clear and convincing. Needle exchange programs save lives. The government's top scientists, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Commission on AIDS, the National Institutes of Health, and the General Accounting Office have all concluded that needle exchange programs are effective in preventing the spread of AIDS and that they do not encourage drug use. The numbers are shocking. Every day, 33 people become infected with AIDS, a virus as a result of intravenous drug use. The Surgeon General has stated that 40 percent of all new AIDS infections in the U.S. are either directly or indirectly the result of infection by contaminated needles. For women and children, the figure is 75 percent. Needle exchange programs are one of the very few programs that have demonstrated that they dramatically reduce the number of new AIDS infections and save lives. To ban Federal funds for these programs in the District of Columbia will bring certain death to thousands. Finally, Mr. Chairman, we should not prevent the District of Columbia from exercising its judgment in spending its money, not Federal money, to join the other 113 local governments in preventing the spread of AIDS through the use of a needle exchange program. We do not have an equal interest, all of us, in the affairs of the District with the residents. They live here. We have an interest in a decent Capital. Elementary democracy says they should rule most local affairs. This bill tramples on that elementary democratic principle. Do not vote for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Tiahrt amendment which would prohibit federal funds for needle exchange distribution programs in the District of Columbia. Mr. Chairman, the amendment we are debating today is a death sentence to many in this country. Mr. Chairman, the evidence is clear and convincing. Needle exchange programs save lives! The federal government's top scientists, as well as the National Academy of Sciences, the National Commission on AIDS, the National Institutes of Health, and the General Accounting Office, have all concluded that needle exchange programs are effective in preventing the spread of AIDS, and that they do not encourage drug use. And yet, with this evidence in hand--with scientific proof in hand that needle exchange saves lives--some in this Congress would rather let people die and suffer than let science and medicine help those in need. The numbers are shocking. Every day, 33 people become infected with the AIDS virus as a result of intravenous drug use. This includes not only drug users themselves, but also their partners and their children. The Surgeon General has stated that 40 percent of all new AIDS infections in the U.S. are either directly or indirectly the result of infection by contaminated needles; for women and children, that figure is 75 percent. There is no gray area here. We know that needle exchange saves lives, and that it does not cause an increase in IV drug use. In fact, studies show that IV drug use actually declines as a result of needle exchange, because needle exchange programs encourage drug users to seek treatment. If we have the ability and resources to help those who want and need assistance and save them from probable death, then why not help them? To remain indifferent to the lives lost is morally bankrupt. The stakes are far too high to let a few extremists stand in the way of a sensible policy that we know will save many lives. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that any member of this House could deny that the AIDS epidemic is a national and international problem that must be meaningfully addressed. Needle exchange programs are one of the very few programs that have demonstrated that they dramatically reduce the number of new AIDS infections and save lives. There is no real controversy surrounding this compelling data--all the experts agree it is a fact that needle exchange saves lives. To ban federal funds for these programs in the District of Columbia will bring certain death to thousands. Mr. Chairman, we do not support the use of intravenous drugs. But we also have to face reality. People do use drugs. If we can reduce the incidence of the use of dirty needles, contaminated with blood borne pathogens, then we can reduce the transmissions of AIDS. Scientific study after study has shown that needle exchange does reduce the number of new AIDS infections. I would like to reiterate that six federally funded reports, conducted independently by the National Commission on AIDS in 1991, the General Accounting Office in 1993, the University of California in 1993, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1993, and the National Academy of Sciences in 1995 confirm this fact. And, finally, Mr. Chairman, we should not prevent the District of Columbia from exercising its judgment, and spending its money--not Federal money--to join the other 113 local governments in preventing the spread of AIDS through use of a needle exchange program. We do not all have an equal interest in the affairs of the District of Columbia. That statement is the nub of the problem. Washington is our capital. We have an interest in its being a decent capital. But the people who live here have a much greater interest in local affairs than my constituents in N.Y. That's elementary democracy. And they should decide local questions.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Largent Amendment to the D.C. Appropriations Bill. This legislation would prevent joint adoptions by individuals who are not related by blood and marriage. In effect, this amendment, under the guise of ensuring the security of children, would prevent otherwise qualified couples from adopting the tens of thousands in need of adoption. We are all aware that this amendment would prevent gay and lesbian couples from adopting children. I find it hard to believe that there are still Members of this Congress who can believe that sexual orientation has a direct effect on a person's ability to raise a child. The American Psychological Association has conclusively decided that there is no scientific data which indicates that gay and lesbian adults are not fit parents. Research by the APA has also determined that having a homosexual parent has no effect on a child's intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, popularity with friends, development of sex-role identity and development of sexual orientation. To maintain assumptions otherwise is unfair, and scientifically unfounded. It is my belief, and I'm sure that with a moment's consideration you will all agree, that the issue of adoption is best decided by parents and trained professionals on a case-by-case basis, based on the best interest of the child. We should not deprive children of families that are capable of raising them. How can you cheat a child out of a happy home and a caring family? How can you deny a person the right to share their love, their home, and the security they can offer a child? Raising a child is a very personal issue, one that deserves the time and consideration of individual case-by-case evaluations. Anything else is simply discriminatory. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Largest amendment, and let each child and each potential parent have the right to an individual evaluation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about national priorities and Federal budget needs. It is now estimated that the budget surpluses over the next 10 years, not counting social security surpluses, will be a little under $1 trillion. Now everyone in Washington wants to figure out how to spend that $1 trillion. Last week we saw the Republican plan for that money. Last week the House of Representatives passed a bill to use almost the entire surpluses, $792 billion of the projected $966 billion surpluses for the next 10 years, for a tax cut, a tax cut heavily slanted to the rich, a tax cut in which 1 percent of taxpayers will get 30 percent of the tax relief, and a tax cut that is back end loaded and will cost an additional $2 trillion in revenues in the second 10 years, just when the baby boomers will be retiring and necessitating huge new expenditures for social security and Medicare. Mr. Speaker, last week the House of Representatives also passed the defense appropriations bill, which will spend $266 billion for defense programs, $2.8 billion more than the administration requested. When combined with other military spending bills, the total defense spending will be $288 billion this year, about $8 billion more than the President's request and almost $10 billion more than the cap set by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. Thankfully, that bill did not include funding to purchase the Rolls Royce of the sky, the F-22 jet fighter. There is still a very real danger the funding for the F-22 will be restored in conference. That would be a huge mistake. For the price of each F-22 plane at $200 million per plane, it will be too expensive to risk in combat. For each F-22, you could repair 117 American schools, you could build 33 new elementary schools, or enroll 40,000 more children in Head Start. Is that not a better use of taxpayer funds? However, when Congress cut the F-22, it did not use the funds for schools or children, it used the funds for more defense spending. Members of Congress cannot wait to bust the budget caps and spend millions more for defense, but we have not done the same for domestic social programs. We all know every penny we spend on the military will not be available to strengthen social security, build affordable housing, extend health care coverage to millions of Americans, or pay down the national debt, and yet we are still talking about devastating cuts to vital Federal programs, included social security. The surplus we hear so much about is based on the assumption that most domestic programs will be cut far past the bone. Simply providing enough funding for non-defense discretionary programs to keep pace with inflation would require an additional $590 billion over the next 10 years. Factoring in an allowance for the average level of emergency appropriations would require another $100 billion. If these limited funds are spent instead on the Republican tax cut, it would mean an average 27 percent cut in all domestic programs by 2009. Mr. Speaker, in 1981, President Reagan and the Republicans led us over the edge of a cliff. They thought we could have a large tax cut and increase defense spending. Sound familiar? The result was an increase in our national debt, the accumulated deficits since George Washington, from $800 billion in 1981, when Ronald Reagan took office, to $4.3 trillion in 1993 when Bill Clinton was sworn in. In 1992, the deficit was $290 billion, with annual deficits of $500 billion projected for the mid-1990's. The Clinton deficit reduction plan of 1993, passed without a single Republican vote, began our climb out of the abyss. Now after 7 years of strong economic growth and careful management of government resources, including reduction of the Federal work force of 370,000, we have reached high ground. We balanced budgets and projected surpluses, and this pains our Republican colleagues. They do not want either to pay down the national debt, as the President proposes, or to initiate long-postponed investments in our schools and day-care centers and our cities and our colleges, our Medicare, and Head Start. We ought to invest this money, instead, in our people, in our schools, and our infrastructure in order to keep our economy growing. With the strong robust economy, we can meet the needs facing Social Security while we invest in other social programs to improve the lives of all Americans. So the message is clear tonight. We cannot postpone any longer our long-postponed investments in schools and day-care centers and roads and bridges and railroads and Medicare and Head Start and housing. Now is the time to shift budget priorities to reflect future needs to help working families to have an educated work force, to build up our country's infrastructure so that we can keep economic growth at a high level that will generate the money to pay for it and that will pay for the money to pay for the Medicare and for Social Security as our baby boomers start to retire. Let us not fritter this away on a tax cut for the rich and on unneeded defense spending on unneeded Rolls Royce programs.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dorothy Epstein, a dedicated community activist. We here in Congress have spent a lot of time talking about Social Security and ensuring that our seniors have the ability to lead safe, healthy, and productive lives. Mrs. Epstein has gone beyond the rhetoric by spending her time relentlessly promoting activism and leadership among older adults so that they, through their own efforts, can secure and protect their future. She played an essential role in creating the Institute for Senior Action, a leadership training program for seniors at the Join Public Affairs Committee (JPAC) for Older Adults in New York. She has served on the JPAC Advisory Committee since 1993 and has used her wisdom to guide that body. These efforts demonstrate Mrs. Epstein's tireless commitment to the cause of senior advocacy: after all, she accomplished all this after retiring at the age of 76. But this is just another in the long list of Mrs. Epstein's accomplishments, a list which begins at her very first job: organizing unions with the New York City relief bureau. She also served as a chapter president at the Association of Workers in Public Relief Agencies, where she continued to work to prevent discrimination in the workplace and layoffs for civil service workers. Her efforts with these organizations laid the groundwork for what would become the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. After her great achievements in the public sector, Mrs. Epstein decided to try her hand in the private sector by founding Synergy, a vitamin company. Like all of her efforts, it was a great success. It was after her retirement from Synergy that she began her extraordinary association with JPAC. Mrs. Epstein was eager to use her experience and vision to confront the issues facing older adults. It did not take long for her to make a big impact, and only a little more than a year after she joined the Advisory Committee, the Institute for Senior Action was born. Under her guidance, the Institute, which graduated its 10th class this year, has pursued vital issues such as the protection of health care, income maintenance, and other social services. The intense, all-day classes stress confidence, cooperation, and help everyone from recent retirees to older seniors get involved in social action. Through the Institute, Mrs. Epstein has been able to spread her energy and dedication to seniors of all backgrounds, who have then been able to make a difference in their own communities. Mr. Speaker, whether she was organizing unions, fighting discrimination, or educating seniors, Mrs. Dorothy Epstein has dedicated her life to empowering people. So, even though she is pulling back from the day-to-day work at the Institute, the ripple of hope that she created with her life's work will continue to grow and expand, changing more and more lives along the way. It is for this ongoing contribution that I honor her today.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the comments of the distinguished ranking member of the committee. Mr. Speaker, I will address this issue further when we get to the substitute. At this time, let me simply reiterate, the bill, except for its effect on civil rights laws, its potential effect, is a necessary and important bill. I hope we can amend it to get rid of this one but, unfortunately, fatal flaw so that we can really protect the rights of the religious liberties of all Americans without threatening the civil rights of any Americans.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. The views expressed by my friend from California are very interesting views. I would simply point out two things. Number one, this bill does and is intended to protect religious freedom for traditional Christians and Jews and for untraditional people, for wiccans, witches, or whatever their religious views. And, secondly, this has nothing whatsoever to do with this amendment. It does with the bill, but not with this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Illinois has got it backwards. The bill without the amendment does not lead to the decision of the States, what trumps what. Any State law would be trumped if the court finds that the State does not have a compelling State interest. If the court finds it has a compelling State interest, it is not trumped. This amendment in effect takes out from that question and gives more effect to the State law in the limited cases of housing and employment discrimination with a carve-out from that provision for churches, small landlords, and small businesspeople.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, no, the gentleman from Illinois is not correct. The amendment makes no mention of gay rights or any other particular right, establishes no preferred status for anything. The amendment limits standing as to who may bring a claim under this bill. And it says anybody may bring a claim, except with respect to housing discrimination small landlords only may bring a claim. With respect to hiring discrimination, small businesspeople or churches and religious institutions only may bring a claim. Who benefits from that depends on State and local law. That could be anybody. In other words, who can bring a claim against a State or local law.

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. I will not repeat the arguments I made during the general debate as to why the underlying legislation is very necessary. I think the vast majority of the Members of this House agree with that proposition. The real question is whether it is appropriate to ensure that this legislation, once enacted, while providing an effective shield for the religious rights of all Americans, will not be used as a sword against the civil rights of other Americans. I believe the amendment in the nature of a substitute strikes that balance, and does so without doing violence to the underlying purpose of the bill. Members who support this legislation need not be concerned that the substitute will nullify its protections in any way. It is no secret there is substantial concern that establishing a standard that says a State and local law cannot be enforced in any case where someone raises a religious claim, unless the State can show a compelling interest in enforcing its law in the specific case, causes concerns about whether religious claims will prevail against State and local civil rights laws. The Committee on the Judiciary has received testimony from some supporters of this bill who have testified very forthrightly that they have and will continue to bring free exercise litigation in an effort to undermine some civil rights protections. While those religious beliefs may be sincere and entitled to a fair hearing, I think it is necessary to strike an appropriate balance without broad carve-outs and without politicizing the process, if that is possible. The amendment recognizes that religious rights are rights that belong to individuals and to religious assemblies and institutions. General Motors does not have sincerely held religious beliefs, by its nature. My amendment protects individual and religious institutions. In order to protect civil rights laws against the person who would say, ``My religion prohibits me from letting my corporation hire a divorced person or a disabled person, or a mother who should be at home with her children, or a gay or a lesbian person, and it prohibits me from letting my hotel rent a room to such people,'' never mind the State civil rights laws that prohibit this kind of discrimination, in order to protect civil rights laws against that sort of religious claim, the amendment places some limits on who may raise a claim under this bill against the application of a State or local law. Any person would have standing, any person would have standing under this amendment to raise any claim with respect to any issue, with the following narrow exceptions: Except a claim against the housing discrimination law could be raised only by a small landlord who was exempted by the terms of the Fair Housing Act; a claim against an employment discrimination law could be raised only by a small business with five or fewer employees, in accord with the general practice of exempting very small businesses from employment discrimination laws; or by a church or other religious institution or religious school exercising its right to decide whom to employ based on its religious beliefs. With these exceptions, businesses of any size could bring any free exercise claims. This is important for the mom and pop store that has difficulties with Sunday closing laws, or with laws allowing malls requiring stores to remain open 7 days a week, as well as for large firms that, for example, produce kosher meat or other products. The amendment recognizes that in protecting any rights, we are always balancing other peoples' rights. The courts do it, we do it, and there is no way around it. I think this amendment accomplishes that end. I can tell the Members that a great deal of work and consultation, both with Members of the religious coalition which is supporting this bill and with other civil rights groups, has gone into developing this language. It provides a basis to enact a bill that will pass and that will protect people who are in need of protection. I know there are those who will object that this amendment is a carve-out, a set of exceptions to a general religious protection principle that will set a precedent for many more exceptions and could lead to gutting of the bill, to rendering our first freedom a hollow shell. I disagree. In the first instance, this bill already has a carve-out that breaks the absolute, the principle of indivisibility that we must never have carve-outs. This bill limits the right of prison inmates to raise otherwise valid claims under the bill by specifically referencing the Prison Litigation Reform Act. So we already have a carve-out in the bill. This is simply a second carve-out. The question is not should we have a carve-out, but is it important, worthwhile, and valid. I submit that to protect civil rights laws from possible claims under this bill, it is a valid protection. Secondly, it is not a carve-out in the sense that, for instance, the prison carve-out is, where it simply says, this shall not apply by reference, or this shall not apply to this or that law. It is a limitation, a narrow limitation on standing which would be very difficult to extend further and which should not be extended any further. I believe that without good faith compromise by people with vastly different beliefs, it would be difficult to get this bill through the Senate, through the House, and through the President. That was our experience with RFRA, and nothing has changed. This amendment provides an opportunity to find the consensus we need to protect the rights of all Americans. If we could not draft this amendment, Mr. Speaker, if we had a stark choice in which we said we can either protect the free exercise of religious rights of people from the damage the Supreme Court has done to it at the expense of the civil rights of other Americans, or we can protect the civil rights of Americans but not their religious rights, that would be a terrible choice, indeed. This amendment offers us a way to do both, protect the religious liberties we need to protect, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) and others have so eloquently expressed, but do so without violating or posing a threat to civil rights of Americans. We ought to do it in the proper way without posing a threat to the civil rights of Americans. I therefore urge my colleagues to adopt this substitute amendment and, reluctantly, if the substitute is not adopted, I will urge my colleagues to vote against the bill so that we can have, further in the process, better odds of getting this amendment or something like this into the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

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