Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the bill we have before us today is a good and important bill, and I worked with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) and others prior to its original introduction. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Florida, and I agree with every word he said about the necessity for this bill and about its drafting. Unfortunately, this bill needs to be amended to ensure that while it acts as a shield to protect the fundamental religious rights of all Americans, as it is intended to do, it cannot also be used as a sword to do violence to the rights of others. I will be offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute later today which will consist of the exact language of this bill but will also add a provision that would ensure that the appropriate balance between competing rights is struck. With that change, I would hope that every Member of this House would support this important legislation. And I hope that if my amendment is adopted, my colleagues will do so. Without the amendment, unfortunately, the bill carries with it a fatal flaw threatening to undermine existing civil rights protections. And I would urge my colleagues in that case to vote against the bill in order to increase the odds that the bill will be properly amended either in this House or in the Senate. This is a very difficult stand for me to take. As many of my colleagues know, I worked very hard for passage of the original Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, in 1993. Since the Supreme Court decision declaring RFRA unconstitutional, I have worked hard to undo the damage the Supreme Court has repeatedly inflicted on our first freedom. Corrective legislation of this sort has been, since the Supreme Court's infamous decision in Employment Division versus Smith 9 years ago, one of my top priorities. So I want my colleagues to know it is with great sorrow I contemplate the possibility that I might have to vote against the legislation which addresses a problem that is very dear to my heart. Religious freedom is in peril because of the rulings set down by the court in Smith. Under that rule, facially neutral, generally applicable laws, having the incidental effect of burdening religion, are no longer deemed violations of the First Amendment. This is unacceptable. The Committee on the Judiciary, in its hearings on this legislation, received more than ample evidence that religion has suffered under the court's new rule and that, by following the indication of Justice Scalia for the political branches to deal with conflicts between law and faith, religious liberty has not fared very well at all. This bill attempts to restore the protection of free exercise of religion which the Supreme Court has deprived us, but it does so at the cost of creating a real threat to the endorsement of State and local civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, having or not having children, or any other innate characteristic. The bill as drafted would enable the CEO of a large corporation to 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 and not at work or a gay or lesbian person and my religion prohibits me from letting my hotel rent a room to any such people. And nevermind the States' civil rights laws that prohibit that kind of discrimination. If this bill passes in its current form, many courts will say that the State does not have a compelling interest in enforcing their laws against these kinds of discrimination and that discrimination will go on despite the laws because of this bill. It is not right, Mr. Speaker, to abrogate the civil rights of many Americans in order to protect the religious liberty of other Americans; and it is not necessary to do so. Thankfully, we do not face such a stark choice between religious liberty and civil rights. We can protect the religious liberty of all Americans without threatening the civil rights of any Americans. And that is what my amendment in the nature of a substitute will do. So I will urge my colleagues to support the Nadler civil rights substitute, which I will describe later when I introduce it in greater detail, and, if it is adopted, to support what will then be an excellent and very important bill. But if the amendment is not adopted, I will unhappily urge my colleagues to vote against the bill in its current form in order to increase the likelihood that the bill will be properly amended either in the House or in the Senate.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, everything that has been said in support of the bill, as my colleagues know, I agree with. I support this bill. I think it is an important bill. I helped draft it. But it has a terrible flaw, and we must pass this amendment. The bill should be used as a shield for religious liberty but not as a sword against civil rights laws. And that is the problem and the need for this amendment. This amendment will prevent it from being used as such a sword against civil rights laws. My distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), who has done yeoman's work on behalf of religious liberties and who I really respect on this, he says that the amendment would subordinate religious liberty. It does not subordinate religious liberty in any way. In fact, the bill, by establishing the compelling interest standard, establishes religious freedom as preeminent over other rights. Rarely can a State show a compelling as opposed to a legitimate interest. We could, if we wanted to, adopt the Supreme Court test of balancing the competing interests by the legitimate interest tests, and that would be an even playing field. But we are not doing that. We are, and I agree with this, establishing a compelling State interest test which establishes religious liberty as compelling over other interests. And I think that is proper to do so. We should afford religion a preferred status, but we are also entitled to fine-tune that balance if we think the courts, pursuant to that mandate of establishing religious freedom as a preferred status, will not do it quite right. What this amendment does is to create a somewhat different balance in the area of civil rights. Because recent court decisions that found that States had no compelling State interest in a case involving, for example, a State law against housing discrimination in a multiple dwelling, the State did not have compelling interest to enforce its antidiscrimination law in a multiple dwelling. The courts sometimes make mistakes. We want to exercise our rights in this amendment to tell the courts a little more finely how to balance it in the civil rights area. We are telling them to use the compelling State interest test to establish religion as preeminent in every other case. In civil rights, we are saying, be a little different than that. Finally, let me say that the religious groups that are supporting this bill, I have spoken with most of them, not all of them, and most of them told me that they agree, they can live with the amendment, it gives them no practical problems, it protects all their legitimate interests. They only disagree with it because of what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) said before, the principle of indivisibility, that there should be one standard. Mr. Speaker, let me simply say, sometimes we have to balance competing rights. We should adopt this amendment so that we do not have to say we will protect religious liberty at the expense of civil rights or civil rights at the expense of civil liberty. We can and should do both. With this amendment, we can and should pass the bill. And without the amendment, I would hope that we would not pass the bill today so that we can get a little more leverage to fine-tune the bill with something like this amendment before we finally pass it, as indeed we must eventually. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me and for her leadership on this issue. I rise in strong support of the DeLauro amendment and oppose this continuing discrimination against women who are Federal employees by denying those women enrolled in the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan access to abortion services. Until 4 years ago, Federal employees, like their private sector counterparts, could choose a health plan which covered the full range of reproductive services including abortion. Two-thirds of private health plans and 70 percent of HMOs today provide abortion services. We are not talking here about the government or the taxpayer subsidizing abortion. Federal employees purchase their own private health insurance. The government contributes to the premium. The health benefit, like their salary, belongs to the employees. Employees who do not choose a plan with abortion coverage are not required to. This provision discriminates again women in public service. It is egregious, reprehensible and arrogant that Members of Congress think they have a right to tell women who in many cases have dedicated their lives to public service that they do not have the choice of receiving legal abortion services. The real agenda here, of course, is to make the women's constitutional right to an abortion as difficult as possible. Since some Members cannot amend the Constitution to appeal the constitutional right, they will do everything possible to place roadblocks in the way of women who want to exercise their constitutional right to have a an abortion. I can respect honest disagreement. They should amend the Constitution, if they can. We will oppose that, we will have an honest debate, and the American people will make a decision. But do not skulk in the rear and use a thousand different ways to violate women's constitutional rights.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I did not understand the question.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as I was sitting and waiting my turn to speak, I happened to glance straight over the Chairman's head at that quote there from one of the great members of the other body, Daniel Webster. The quote says, ``Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests, and see whether we also in our day and generation may not perform something worthy to be remembered.'' What do we remember nations for? What do we remember 16th century Italy for? Can we name her kings? Can we name her doges? Can we name her wars, her conquests? No, but we can name her artworks. We can name da Vinci. We remember Leonardo da Vinci. We still treasure the Mona Lisa. We remember Erasmus and his contributions to the humanities. What do we remember of ancient Greece? Can we name her generals? Can we name the dictators of Sparta, the leaders of Athens? Very few of them, but we remember the Iliad and Odyssey. We remember her philosophers, we profit from them. We remember the humanities and the arts. This is ultimately much of what a nation is remembered for, and what gives us much of our value and our humanity. The Federal budget this year is about $1.7 trillion, $1.7 trillion. The budget for the arts is about one ten thousandths of 1 percent, if I have my decimal places right, about $100 million, and we are debating whether to increase that by one one hundred thousandths of 1 percent, $10 million, or to decrease it by two-tenths of one one hundred thousandths of 1 percent of the budget, $2 million. Of course, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) does not really care about the $2 million. What he really objects to, as he said himself, is we should not be funding the arts in the first place. That is what this really is. It is a symbolic amendment against funding for the arts. But the fact is before the NEA. Yes, the NEA is only $100 million. It ought to be $150 or $160 million. And it is only a small part of all the arts funding in the country. But we have heard the speakers say before, we know the facts, that for every NEA dollar that an institution gets it leverages a lot of private money, that it brings forth private money into the arts. We have heard people speak about the economic value, that it is worth billions and billions of dollars for the economy of this country. We have also heard some bogus arguments against it. We have heard that 166 districts get no funding, no funding directly. But the fact of the matter is that, first of all, it is not even true, because the money is given to the State Arts Council which is going to those districts. But, second of all, there are plenty of institutions in New York, in Los Angeles, and many other places which may be headquartered in those places but which have traveling arts shows, traveling dance troupes which go to all of these other places around the country. One of the real worths of the NEA is that it has spread the arts and made it available. Before the NEA 30 years ago, citizens could be exposed to the arts if they lived in New York or Los Angeles or Chicago. But if citizens lived in a small town in rural America, there were no symphonies, no plays, no traveling arts troupes to go to. The NEA provides the funding for that to spread the arts all through this great Nation of ours. That is really what it is. That is really what it does. And then we hear again the same bogus argument: Too few places get too much of the money. That is absurd. Do we ever hear representatives from New York complain that the district of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) or districts in Indiana get too much of the wheat subsidy, too much of the agricultural subsidy? Manhattan does not get a dime in agricultural subsidies. Mr. Chairman, it would be ridiculous to say that. We do not have agriculture in Manhattan. We give the subsidies and the aid where the industry we are aiding or subsidizing is. And if agriculture is in Indiana and Illinois and wherever, that is where the money should go. And if the arts and arts institutions are headquartered in New York or L.A. or wherever, that is where more of the money should go, especially if they spread their benefits all through the breadth of this land as they do. Mr. Chairman, it has been said the Framers never intended subsidy of the arts. The Framers never intended Social Security or Medicare either. The Framers never intended a lot of things that most people in this country support. We advance. Times change. The people of this country decide through their representative institutions what the Federal Government should be doing. It is not simply limited to what an 18th century people thought it should be doing at that time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would simply add we do it the same way in medical research. Maryland gets a disproportionate share of our medical research dollars because the National Institutes of Health is there. Is that unfair? No, it is simply the way the world operates. We have a good research institution. We subsidize research. We have wheat fields. We subsidize wheat. And we have arts institutions, and we subsidize art.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities by $10 million each. It is about time we had a fair, open debate on increasing funding for the arts. In the past, we have funded NEA as high as $167 million. But, since 1995, Congress has consistently cut funding for the NEA to below $100 million. This amendment is a very modest increase, and it is still far less than the President's request of $150 million. We should do more for our artists and cultural institutions, not less. We should remember that, because NEA funding is matched by private dollars, for every dollar we have cut from the NEA's budget at least double that amount has been cut from organizations that receive NEA funding; and for every dollar we restore now, at least double that will be restored for NEA recipients. In addition to budget reductions from the Federal Government, private funding for the arts has been slipping as well. This has been occurring at a time when more and more Americans are seeking out the arts and benefiting from our cultural institutions. Recent reports are that museum attendance nationwide is at an all-time high, yet museum visitors are finding higher entrance fees from Philadelphia to Seattle and from Portland to Chicago. Visitors to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art recently have been jolted by a suggested admission price of $10. The world-famous Metropolitan Opera finds itself with a deficit expected to be more than $1.5 million just for the year. The Met, long a favorite of private and corporate donors, will survive, but the survival of other institutions, especially smaller, less well-known institutions, is much more problematic, especially since many of them have been hit by cuts in government support at every level. Many have already been forced to close their doors or to scale back their programs dramatically. We should increase the funding to keep these arts institutions alive and well in America. It is important to realize how the funds distributed by the NEA intrinsically connect the entire country. For example, last year, the NEA, working in association with the New York-based Chamber Music America, made a $300,000 grant to underwrite the development of a special project celebrating the millennium. In carrying out the project, Chamber Music America is working with more than 300 organizations and artists around the Nation to produce a 3-year musical celebration. The NEA's $300,000 grant has been leveraged into more than $4 million in support for the projects widely distributed throughout the country. This is just one example of how the effort which began at the NEA at the Federal level soon blossomed into musical programs all over the country. It is particularly unfortunate that this bill places an artificial limit on funding to areas that have a concentration of arts institutions. We in New York are proud that New York City attracts the best and the brightest artists from around the country, but this legislation places an artificial cap on funds to New York City and to other such areas. It is unfair. It is time to stop punishing and start rewarding States and localities that nurture the arts. We send our agriculture subsidies to agricultural States, and New York City does not complain for not getting any part of the wheat subsidy, and that is entirely appropriate. But it is also appropriate to send support for the arts to the regions that produce the most arts and culture. We should acknowledge that certain regions offer products and services that benefit all of us, even though they originate, in some cases, from concentrated areas. The NEA is a good investment for American taxpayers. It helps improve our economy, educate our children, enrich our every day lives and, therefore, should receive increased Federal funding, especially since it leverages a lot of private funding. The National Endowment for the Humanities complements the work of the NEA and provides critical Federal support to the Nation's educational and cultural life. The humanities are critical to any free and democratic society. The study of history, philosophy, literature and religion are critical to creating an informed public, which is the bedrock of democracy. How can we expect people to make intelligent decisions and govern themselves well without the study of the humanities? The NEH is crucial to our efforts to preserve the writings and ideas of American culture. In fact, the endowment plays a critical role in efforts to preserve the writings of American presidents such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Dwight Eisenhower. We should support the increase in funding for a program whose primary purpose is to preserve American history and culture. What happened to the Met--and what has affected hundreds of cultural institutions nationwide--is that the Reader's Digest Association, facing stagnant sales in 1997, began a retrenchment that included a cut in its stock dividends. The handsome annuity from the company's dividends, that had found its way to cultural institutions nationwide through the Lila Acheson Wallace Foundation, was slashed. The Met, long a favorite of private and corporate donors, will survive, but the survival of other institutions is much more problematic, especially since many of them have been hit by cuts in government support at every level. Many have been forced to close their doors or dramatically scale back their programs. In fact, the NEA has specifically worked to expand the geographical reach of its programs. IN 1994, the NEA provided $300,000 to start the Rural Residency Program, which is designed to enrich the musical life of under-served rural communities. Since its inception the program has placed 98 musicians with 23 different rural host organizations in 11 states. They have worked in schools, visited nursing homes, performed outreach concerts, and taught individual students. NEH is to promote research, education, and the preservation of our cultural heritage. We should demonstrate our support for these goals by increasing funding for this agency. The NEH promotes the study of the humanities in numerous ways. The endowment has funded professional development for 50,000 teachers in its summer seminars, and they have reached in turn 7\1/2\ million students. Due to the severe cuts in funding sustained since FY 1996, the NEH is now able to fund only about one-third the number of summer seminars and institutes for teachers as they had before. They are seeking additional funds this year to reverse that trend and to expand on the educational mission of the agency. They will continue to support the premier Internet resource for humanities teachers, EDSITEment, which provides links to and lesson plans for 50 top-quality humanities websites. The NEH also funs multimedia database programs on the Supreme Court, the Civil War, and the philosophies and civilizations of ancient Greece and Rome. The NEH plans a special initiative that will bring online tens of thousands of digital images of manuscripts, maps, photographs, and artifacts. The NEH also provides national leadership for efforts to digitize and make more accessible such important tests as the Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient Egyptian papyrus fragments and the works of Shakespeare. The endowment has preserved 750,000 brittle books and 55 million pages of American newspapers. The NEH is planning a new program of awards to small libraries and museums to support staff attendance at preservation training sessions, on-site consultations by preservation experts, and the purchase of preservation supplies and equipment. Mr. Chairman, these two programs, the NEA and the NEH, with the very modest $10 million increases in this amendment, will still be funded at levels 40 percent less than that 5 years ago. We should restore them to at least what they got 5 years ago, but, failing that, this amendment is a small first step in that direction. I congratulate the sponsors, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do believe that in any grant program we have provisions to make sure that it is broadly spread and should not all go to a few places. But, obviously, it cannot be exactly evenly spread.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation and concur with the description of the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Gekas) of its purpose and effect. This misplaced comma was actually brought to our attention by a State Supreme Court justice of the New York State Supreme Court in my district who pointed out the obvious intent of Congress was very clear, but the comma and the paragraph were in the wrong place, and so this changes that. Mr. Speaker, I do not think the courts have misinterpreted the law, but why tempt them to do so by not correcting this comma? In addition, the technical change to the CALEA bill that is in this bill, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, is also a technical change that extends several effective dates until the FCC and the FBI can work out certain technical standards that they are working out; and the minority has been consulted on this, and we certainly have no objection to it. It is a technical extension. We are in support of it. So I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I do not for one moment grant what one of the speakers said a few moments ago, that we are agreed on most things, that we are only disagreeing on incest. I do not grant that the real purpose of this bill is to help anybody. The real purpose of this bill is to make it as difficult as possible for young women to get an abortion. The real purpose is to make it as impossible for young women to exercise their legal rights as we can possibly make it. That is the real motivation. It is what is driving this bill, and not any supposed concern about parental involvement. As the New York Times this morning said, the bill is ``a cold-hearted piece of legislation that would jeopardize the health of desperate young women seeking abortions, and potentially imprison adults who help them.'' Realize what this bill would do. A 19-year-old sister who helped her 17-year-old sister to an abortion clinic or to a hospital across the State line could go to jail. The bill is clearly unconstitutional because it violates the constitutional principles of federalism. The bill violates the rights of States to enact and enforce their own laws governing conduct within their own boundaries, and it violates the rights of residents of each of the United States to travel to and from any State of the Union for lawful purposes, a right strongly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in its recent landmark decision in Saenz versus Roe only last month. The fact of the matter is that each State is free, notwithstanding Article IV, to make certain benefits available to its own citizens. A State's criminal laws may not be replaced with stricter ones for the visiting citizen from another State, whether by that State's own choice or by virtue of the law of the visitor State, or by virtue of a congressional enactment. This bill seeks to export the laws of one State to another. We cannot constitutionally make it a crime to do something that is legal in the State where you do it because it is illegal in a different State. I know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) will cite a 1978 cases in which a Mann Act prosecution for transporting a woman across State lines for the purpose of prostitution was upheld, despite the fact that prostitution is legal in the State to which she was transported. But all that case says is that of course there can be a Federal law and a Federal crime without a State law. The Federal government can prosecute a spy in New Jersey, even if New Jersey has no laws against espionage. But this bill is very different. It would only be a crime to transport a young woman to another State for the purpose of obtaining an abortion if she had not met the legal requirements to get an abortion in her own State, in the State she left. In other words, the bill would, in effect, for purposes of abortion, imprison her within the laws of the State that she left, and this we cannot constitutionally do. So the bill is clearly unconstitutional, and the bill is cruel. It would force a young woman to drive by herself for long distances both before and after an abortion, greatly increasing her own health risks, rather than allow a responsible adult to accompany her to and from the clinic. This is dangerous, it is unnecessary, it will cause deaths. The American Medical Association has noted that women who feel they cannot involve a parent often take drastic steps to maintain the confidentiality of their pregnancies, including running away from home, obtaining unsafe back alley abortions, or resorting to dangerous and sometimes fatal self-induced abortions. The AMA has reported that ``the desire to maintain secrecy has been one of the leading reasons for illegal abortion deaths since 1973.'' This bill is a death sentence for many young women. Actually, it is not, because the Supreme Court will throw it out. But if it were ever enacted into law, until the Supreme Court throws it out, it is a death sentence for young women. Like all parental consent laws and required waiting period laws, the bill further risks women's health because of delayed abortions. We should be taking actions to ensure that abortions are as safe as possible, rather than delaying it to make it as difficult as possible. The bill also invites family members to sue one another for damages. Who gets to sue? Parents, even parents who have been abusive or have abandoned their children; fathers who have raped their daughters are allow to sued for damages from the prison cell. Whom can they sue? The bill entitles parents to sue doctors, clinics, relatives. The litigation could bankrupt clinics just by the discovery process, which I am sure delights the supporters of this bill. If the intent is only to sue the transporter, the bill should be amended to say so. What about the criminal penalties? The bill would force a grandmother to go to jail for coming to the aid of a grandchild, or a 19-year-old sister for coming to the aid of her 17-year-old sister. I offered an amendment which would exempt grandparents and adult brothers and sisters of the minors, but the Committee on Rules would not even allow the amendment to be considered on the floor. It would criminalize almost any adult relative of a child who tries to help a young women. Proponents of the bill ignore these concerns and wave around a judicial bypass as a panacea, but we know the judicial bypass option of many parental consent laws have been ineffective. Again, my amendment to improve this bill by allowing individuals subject to prosecution to appeal to a Federal court for a judicial bypass was blocked from consideration by the Committee on Rules. We know that many local judges refused to hold hearings or are widely known to be anti-choice, and refuse to grant bypasses, despite rulings of the Supreme Court that they cannot withhold the bypass. This bill further limits the options of young women who, for whatever reason, cannot obtain parental consent. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this unconstitutional and cruel bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman). (Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. Perhaps some of my colleagues are wondering why we are wasting taxpayers' time and money today debating a bill directed at a tax that was declared unconstitutional last Friday. In fact, as of Friday's ruling, no person on the face of the earth, not from New Jersey, Connecticut or anywhere else, is faced with this tax. It does not exist. I realize that this is a hot political issue in some other States and so we are going to waste time talking about it, but the fact of the matter is we are talking about nothing. The bill passed in New York was atrocious. I say it about my own State legislature. It was atrocious and flatly unconstitutional, flatly against the Supreme Court's prior rulings, and the State Supreme Court in New York last Friday said it was facially unconstitutional. Now, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) says it may be appealed. Yes, it will be appealed but by the City of New York, not by the State of New York, and the grounds for the appeal of the city is that the State had no right to pass the law in the first place under State law because it violated the State's home rule provision with respect to cities. If the city wins its lawsuit, the law will be reinstated, but it will be equal. That is, it will apply to commuters from within the State and from other States equally, as was the case for the last 30 years prior to the State legislature's atrocious actions a few weeks ago. If the city loses its appeal, the tax will not exist. In either event, this bill has no impact and can have no impact on the situation with respect to New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. The situation the bill's authors mean to address is the fact that the bill by its terms, the bill the legislature passed by its terms, said that New York City cannot levy a commuter tax on commuters from elsewhere in the State but can on commuters from other States. The Supreme Court knocked that down, and it is out. So why are we dealing with this bill? For political reasons. Now that I understand. We do a lot of things here for political reasons. That is not so terrible, but the fact is this bill would affect the tax laws in every State. The bill has not been properly considered. There have been no hearings on this bill. The bill was not considered or voted on by the subcommittee. It went straight to the committee without any hearings. And we do not understand, in the rush to get this bill to the floor, the Republican majority which cites that the committee process would have given us a chance to look the bill over more carefully. It deals with a very complex area of interstate taxation. While it was written specifically to address the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut situation, it applies to every jurisdiction in the United States. I think it is a mistake to consider it before the subcommittee has had a chance to have hearings and to really understand the implications of the bill the way it is drafted. To the extent the bill reflects the current state of constitutional jurisprudence, I have no objections, but we should take the time to understand what other unforeseen effects it may have nationally on various State tax laws across the country. We have not done this, and it is a mistake. Congress needs to consider that this legislation would apply to every State which taxes income earned within its borders by nonresidents. The normal process served by the Committee on the Judiciary would be able to assess the impact this legislation would have on the myriad State tax laws nationally rather than focusing on one cross-border tax dispute which is no longer at issue since the State courts have thrown out the law as unconstitutional. I understand this is a political hot potato in New Jersey and Connecticut, but that is no reason to rush the legislation through the process without any review, especially now that the tax that has the residents of those States upset no longer exists. Mr. Speaker, I submit that this is an unnecessary bill at this time; and we should send it back, not pass it. Let the committee consider it properly and see how it impacts on the States other than New York, Connecticut and New Jersey, on which States it will have no impact at all. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, most of the debate on this bill, with all due respect on all sides, has missed the point. New York City has had a commuter tax levied equally on residents of New York State and residents of other States for 30 years, 33 years. The State legislature, for local political reasons, and the Governor, for local political reasons, abolished that tax, but only for residents of New York State, not for residents of neighboring States, a clearly unconstitutional act, unconstitutional on its face, and the Supreme Court has said so, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania mentioned, in previous years. All we have to do is wait for the State courts to knock it down. The State Supreme Court last Friday said they cannot do that, the law is unconstitutional. So now we have this bill to repeal a law that has already been ruled unconstitutional, but we are told it is absolutely essential to pass this bill because the mayor, the city of New York, has appealed the ruling of the court. Yes, but the only grounds on which he has appealed the ruling of the court was not with respect to the unequal application of the law to the two States, or to the several States, I should say; he has appealed it on the grounds that the State legislature, without a home rule message, had no power under the State Constitution to pass that bill. The court will either agree or disagree. If the court agrees with the mayor, the law will be back in its entirety. The city will have the commuter tax equally on residents of New York State outside the city and on residents of other States, and this bill, if it passes, will not stop that tax. It simply says, you have to tax residents and nonresidents equally, and the law previously did that. If the action of the legislature is declared unconstitutional and the law was restored, it will again do that. It will meet the requirements of this bill, and residents of Westchester County in New York City and Bergen County in New Jersey and Fairfield County in Connecticut will continue paying the taxes they have for the last 33 years. If the court rules against the mayor's appeal and says that the legislature has the power to pass the tax, to pass the bill under New York State law, it still is going to hold the unequal application unconstitutional, because that part of the decision has not been appealed. No one thinks that it could be appealed, because the Supreme Court has been clear on the subject. So we are, at best, with regards New York and the neighboring States, wasting our time with this bill. It will have no impact whatsoever, period. I am not opposed to this bill because I am worried about New York. It will have no impact on New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut. It will have an impact on other States in ways we have not examined. For example, the bill says a State may not impose a tax on the income earned in the State by non-residents unless the tax is of substantial equality of treatment for the citizens of the State and non-residents so commuting. A lot of courts read that to mean that the State could not impose a lower tax on commuters from a neighboring State than the residents of its own State, so it might hold that if you taxed the residents of your own State at 4 percent, you cannot tax the residents of a neighboring State at 2 percent. I do not think that is what the sponsors intended, but this is a hastily drafted bill for a hastily concocted situation, which is no longer in existence, and it has not gotten proper scrutiny by the subcommittee and the committee in hearings. So I would urge that this bill should be set aside or defeated now and the committee should hold hearings and should really look into how this is going to affect the reciprocal agreement between, let us say Indiana and Illinois before we pass it. Again, this has no impact on New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut. We are not concerned about that. But it may have unanticipated consequences throughout the country, and it is just irresponsible to be considering this bill in this way at this time without proper hearings and proper consideration. That is why I urge its defeat at this time, so that we can consider it properly as to its implications throughout the rest of the country.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner). (Mr. WEINER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to introduce, along with my colleague from New York, Mr. Gilman, a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives in honor of the extraordinary life and work of Rabbi Morris Sherer. Rabbi Sherer's tremendous contributions to Judaism, and to this nation, really shine as an example which both deserves honor and emulation. I had the good fortune and privilege to know Rabbi Sherer, and recall his dedication to the preservation of Judaism in years following Holocaust. He fought for religious liberty, he built educational programs, and always provided guidance to the perplexed. Torat Emet Hayta b'hihu--The Torah was always in his mouth. His leadership helped bring about a rebirth of Orthodox Jewish life, of charitable giving and of learning as the President of the Agudath Israel of America since 1961. Mr. Speaker, I think Americans of all faiths can learn a great deal from the life of Rabbi Sherer. His commitment to the preservation of the faith and culture of our people, his devotion to education and to helping those least fortunate, his ability to reach out to others to make this a better nation, his record of accomplishment, all make his life and work an inspiration to all. I urge our colleagues to join in honoring the life of this outstanding American. H. Res. 229 Whereas Rabbi Morris Sherer was born in New York City on June 18, 1921; Whereas upon receiving his rabbinic ordination from Ner Israel Rabbinical College in Baltimore, Maryland, Rabbi Sherer joined the Agudath Israel of America in 1943, devoting his energies to rescue and relief activities on behalf of European Jewry during the Second World War; Whereas through his work with the Agudath Israel of America, Rabbi Sherer played a major role in the post-World War II renaissance of Orthodox Jewish life in the United States, fusing the talents and energies of native-born Americans with the determination and courage of immigrant Holocaust survivors and refugees to help build Orthodox Jewish communities and institutions across the country; Whereas Rabbi Sherer worked tirelessly and effectively to safeguard religious liberty in America and throughout the world, to safeguard the rights of Sabbath observers, to assist the beleaguered Jewish communities in lands of oppression across the globe, to address the needs of needy persons of all backgrounds, and to apply the moral and ethical teachings of classical Judaism to issues and problems of modern society; and Whereas Rabbi Sherer died on May 17, 1998, leaving behind a legacy of extraordinary humanitarian accomplishment: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives-- (1) that Rabbi Morris Sherer should be recognized as one of the outstanding American religious leaders of our time, who played a historic role in the growth and development of the Orthodox Jewish community in the United States; and (2) that Rabbi Morris Sherer's life of commitment to education, human dignity, religious liberty, and freedom is one which serves as an inspiration to all people and deserves emulation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, it is certainly commendable to reflect on one's shortcomings, to seek forgiveness for wrongdoing, or to try to build a world for our children which is free from violence or hate. Indeed, across America these sentiments are often to be found in the prayers of our neighbors. What is wrong with this resolution? For one thing, the Congress has arrogated to itself the role of religious director of the Nation. That is wrong. Congress has no business leading the Nation in prayer, or giving its official endorsement to religion in general, or to particular religious beliefs or practices. The people who founded this Nation understood that religion, if it is to remain truly free, must remain an individual right, and that the hand of big government must be kept away. No matter how this resolution is dressed up it is an official endorsement of religion and of particular religious beliefs and activities, and constitutes an establishment of religion. For those who think it is harmless and merely a statement in support of prayer generally and does not reflect a particular sectarian view, I point out two clauses. The resolution states that the Congress recognizes the unique opportunity of the new millenium for religion. What millenium does the resolution refer to? In the Jewish calendar, it is the year 5758. The common calendar that we use counts time since the birth of Jesus to which the resolution accords great religious significance. Of course, the significance of the birth of Jesus is a fundamental Christian belief, but I do not think Congress should endorse or deny that belief. Many Americans, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, are not Christians. Despite the efforts of a very few, most Americans believe this is a Nation for all its citizens, not just for Christians. It is our duty to defend the right of all our people to believe or not believe, to pray or not to pray as they see fit. That is what our Constitution stands for, what our Bill of Rights is meant to protect, and what generations of Americans have fought and died to preserve, and what this resolution would compromise. The resolution states it is a necessary duty of the people of this Nation to offer up our prayer and deeds to almighty God. I personally believe that to be the duty of all people, but who are we to instruct our fellow citizens in their religious obligations? The resolution states it is the necessary duty of the people of this Nation in a solemn and public manner to confess our shortcomings. Most religions believe confession is a private matter. Where does Congress get the right and authority to declare them wrong? Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this proposed resolution even though I find many sentiments contained within it which are commendable. It is certainly commendable to pray, to reflect on one's shortcomings, to seek forgiveness for wrongdoing or to try to build a world for our children which is free from violence and hate. And it is obviously commendable to work to achieve a world of love free from the violence, cultural and ethnic division, strife, and murder which this resolution rightly observes have ``stained our communities and the world.'' Indeed, across America, these sentiments are often to be found in the prayers of our neighbors. So what's wrong with this resolution? Well, for one thing, the Congress is arrogating to itself the role of religious director of the nation. That's wrong. Congress has no business leading the nation in prayer or giving its official endorsement to religion in general or to particular religious beliefs or practices. The people who founded this nation understood that religion, if it is to remain truly free, must remain an individual right, and that the hand of big government must be kept away. No matter how this resolution is dressed up, it is an official endorsement of religion and of particular religious activities and beliefs and constitutes an establishment of religion. For those who think it is harmless and merely a statement in support of prayer generally, and does not reflect any particular sectarian view, I would point out two clauses. The Resolution states that Congress ``recognizes the unique opportunity that the dawn of a millennium presents to people in a Nation under G-d to humble and reconcile themselves with G-d and with one another. What millennium does the Resolution refer to? On the Jewish calendar, it is the year 5758. Our common calendar counts time since the birth of Jesus, to which the Resolution accords great religious significance. Now, of course, the significance of the birth of Jesus is a fundamental Christian belief, but I don't think Congress should endorse--or deny-- that belief. Many Americans--Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus--are not Christians, and despite the efforts of a very few, most Americans believe that this is a nation for all its citizens, not just for Christians. It is our duty to defend the right of all people to believe or not to believe, to pray or not to pray, as they see fit. That's what our Constitution stands for, what our Bill of Rights is meant to protect, what generations of Americans have fought and died to preserve, and what this resolution would compromise. This resolution states ``it is the necessary duty of the people of this Nation . . . to offer up our prayers and needs to Almighty G-d.'' I personally believe that to be the duty of all people, but who are we to instruct our fellow citizens in their religious obligations? The resolution further states ``it is the necessary duty of the people of this Nation . . . in a solemn and public manner, to confess our shortcomings.'' Most religions believe that confession is a private matter between an individual and his or her G-d. Where does Congress get the right to declare them wrong? The sponsor of this legislation has, in fact, been very sensitive to issues concerning the establishment of religion when she perceived a threat of governmental institutions being hijacked by religious beliefs she does not share. For example, in the Congressional Record of January 31, 1996, she devoted the better part of an hour arguing that funding for environmental protection programs, including the EPA, violated the establishment clause, because some environmentalists came to their views via their religious beliefs. A copy of that speech follows my prepared statement. If the EPA violates the Establishment Clause, what can we say about this particular legislation? Finally, I would just observe that this resolution is just another attempt by the majority to evade the real problems plaguing our nation, like hate crimes, poverty and gun violence. For example, although it makes reference to the lynchings and hate crimes against People of Color and a Gay man in Wyoming, it never identifies these crimes for what they were, not does it urge legislation to make these hate crimes illegal in our nation. Matthew Sheppard was murdered for one reason and one reason only--because he was a Gay man, but the resolution doesn't say that and the sponsor won't support legislation. The bill also makes reference to the gruesome hate crime which resulted in the death of James Byrd who was dragged to death behind a pickup truck, but his name is nowhere to be found in this resolution, nor is the fact that he was murdered solely because he was African American. This isn't the first time that Congress has obliquely dealt with these reprehensible crimes. Just enough of a statement so that they can say they did it, but not so specific so as to offend the racist constituencies out there. And, as always, no real solutions offered. No hate crimes laws, no increased enforcement, no laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, no additional help to communities. This resolution is the latest in a series of assaults by the House on our First Freedom. May G-d grant us the wisdom to spend our time doing our jobs, and leave religion to the ministers, priests, and Rabbis of this nation--and to the people who will exercise their freedom of religion far more wisely than we could instruct them to do.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. In 1963, the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, was dynamited by the Ku Klux Klan. The killing of four African American girls preparing for a religious ceremony, shocked the Nation and acted as a catalyst for much of the civil rights movement. Last week, under the cover of darkness, three Sacramento area synagogues were targeted and set ablaze in equally cowardly acts of hate. I rise to condemn these and all similar acts of hate that should shock and shame our National conscience. This atrocity, like the wave of church burnings across the South, illustrates the need for continued vigilance for this resolution and for the passage of the hate crimes prevention act of 1999. This legislation will make it easier for Federal authorities to prosecute racial, religious, and ethnic violence, in the same way that the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 helped Federal prosecutors combat church arson, by loosening the unduly rigid jurisdictional requirements under Federal law for prosecuting such arson. Under this legislation, the States will continue to take the lead in the prosecution of the more than 50,000 hate crimes reported since 1997, but the Justice Department will be able to provide the backup and resources necessary to ensure that such hate crimes do not go unpunished. As Members of Congress, the synagogue arsons give us further notice that our work in addressing hate crimes is not complete. We should move forward on pending legislation. I encourage the Sacramento community to stand together and to rebuild the fabric of its community. From the ashes of hate, let us build the garden of hope and unity. I urge the passage of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to manage the remainder of the time.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, if I heard correctly, and if in fact what the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) is saying is that unless the city and the State come up with a specific financing plan to show a commitment for the bulk of the money, three-quarters or whatever of the several hundred million dollars that this will take, which I do not believe can happen, but that unless that happens there will not be additional funding for this project, then I think that is a very wise statement and it would render the amendment unnecessary. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, and I appreciate the commitment from the gentleman from Pennsylvania.