Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the conduct of the President over the last 8 months and before will be judged in this proceeding. What is at issue here this morning is not his conduct but the fairness of the resolution before us, which is manifestly and grossly unfair. It is manifestly unfair because it denies the President the privilege we have given to every other person accused, as the gentleman from Michigan stated, the ability to see the accusation before it is released publicly so he can prepare a response. It is grossly unfair because, with respect to the 2,200 pages of evidence and the 17 boxes of other evidence, the entire Committee on the Judiciary is going to see it, to decide what must be kept confidential and protecting privacy of third parties. That means 50 people are going to see it. It is going to leak out. Those privacy rights are going to be violated. That is ensured by this resolution. It is grossly unfair because, during the 10 or 20 days that that is going to be done, while the world will see salacious details, the President will not be allowed to look at those documents. There is no reason why he should not. There is no delay entailed. But this resolution is doing everything it can to make the President's defense as difficult as possible and to make it very likely that all the details that the special prosecutor himself says should be protected for privacy reasons will leak out, because 50 people in this town cannot keep a secret. For a practical problem, if 50 people have to have time between now and September 28, how is anybody going to look through those 80,000 or 90,000 pages to decide what should be kept secret? They are not going to have time enough with two copies.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rabbi Leibish Lefkowitz, who passed away on August 1, 1998. Rabbi Lefkowitz, an esteemed leader of the Satmar community, earned the respect and gratitude of countless citizens whose lives he touched. Rabbi Lefkowitz was born in St. Peter, Hungary on June 20, 1920. In 1941 he married Dinah Fischer, and graduated from the Yeshivah of Rabbi Rosner in Sekelhid, Hungary the following year. After escaping from a Budapest prison in 1944, he and his wife overcame immense challenges and arrived in the United States in 1956. Rabbi Lefkowitz established a crystal and gift store on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. This store eventually evolved into the Crystal Clear Industries Enterprise, now one of the largest crystal companies in the U.S. Rabbi Lefkowitz became the lay leader of the Satmar community in 1970. Rabbi Lefkowitz held many leadership positions within the community. He served as president of numerous educational and service organizations, and was well known for his philanthropy and leadership. He was the president of both the United Talmud Academy and Beth Rachel of N.Y. State, which educates over 18,000 students. Rabbi Lefkowitz was also the president of the Satmar Congregation Yetev Lev and leader and president of the United Jewish Organization located in Williamsburgh. Rabbi Lefkowitz also founded and became the mayor of the Kiryas Joel Village, located in Monroe, N.Y. Rabbi Lefkowitz did not reserve his generosity only for his many public endeavors, he was also well-known for his compassion he exhibited to every person he encountered. He was deeply kind and caring, and he will be missed sorely by all who were touched by him.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I speak today in order to voice my disappointment with the current status of the census debate. The partisan politics that have been paralyzing the implementation of the census are an embarrassment, and ultimately detrimental to the public, the people for whom the Census is supposed to work. In 1990, there were 26 million errors in the census. About 8.8 million people were missed, a population almost equal to Michigan's. Most of those missed were poor people and minorities. The 1990 census was long, expensive, labor intensive, and inaccurate. Despite the increase in the cost, this count was the first one in recent history to be less accurate than the preceding census. We should not be satisfied with a means of testing that misses millions of people. The Census Bureau has a comprehensive plan for 2000 that will produce the most accurate census in our history. The methods intended for the 2000 census are the same ones the government uses to calculate the unemployment rate and the GNP. The method, statistical sampling, has thus already received government approval in other important arenas. There is no reason to believe that it would not be equally as effective for the Census. In 1990, the census cost $2.6 billion. In 2000, the census will cost $7.2 billion if similar methods are used. This number could be cut to $4 billion, nearly in half, if statistical sampling were used. Why use all the additional funds on a method that has proven itself faulty and insufficient? Mr. Chairman, no one listening to this is unaware that there has been a large effort on the side of the Majority to prevent statistical sampling from being used in the 2000 Census. One aspect of this effort is the current attempt to make only half of the census funds available for the time being. By denying full access to the census funds, members of this Congress are in effect paralyzing any sort of Census for 2000. Permitting only partial use of the monies allocated for the census is detrimental to whatever type of method is eventually used, statistical or otherwise. A census, of any sort, cannot be executed efficiently if all the funds are not available for the start up of the census now. It seems that many members of this Congress would prefer to have the census fail instead of having an accurate one. It is disgraceful that any Member would want to tamper with the accuracy of the census for their own political agenda. It is disgraceful that they would purposely ignore people of this country and compromise their fair representation by preventing an accurate census. An accurate census helps Americans in every community. Every year, census data determines $180 billion dollars in federal spending. Census information help direct where the money goes for better roads and transit systems, schools, senior citizen centers, health care facilities and programs for children like Head Start and school lunches. If the census isn't accurate, local communities will be cheated of their fair share. I urge my colleagues to stop the antics that are plaguing this debate, and realize that they are harming the census, any census, by continuing to halt full funding. I ask my colleagues to realize that only a Statistical Sampling Census will provide the accuracy needed and provide an accurate picture of our nation's population and communities.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Norton Amendment to the D.C. Appropriations bill which is now before us. I am strongly opposed to the bill without the Nortion amendment, as it singles out low-income women in D.C. and steals from them their right to choose. Many states provide for the women who were left out in the cold by the Hyde amendment, which limits the use of federal funds for abortion to instances in which the women is the victim of rape or incest, or in which the life of the mother is in danger. To use this body's control over funding for the District of Columbia to make a political point would be a disgrace. Our control, as a Federal body, over the local spending of the District is unique. In no other instance do we wield such a discrete power over a locality's own discretionary funds. I find it curious that my colleagues, who purport to be so concerned with maintaining ``state's rights'', are willing to blatantly disregard local automony when it comes to the District of Columbia. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment so that low- income women who reside in the District of Columbia may exercise their right to choose as women in many states can. I regret that I need to remind this body once again, that the women of America have the right to choose to have abortions. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to restore the right of low-income women of D.C. to exert the same controls over their bodies which other women throughout America have.

Mr. NADLER

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 affect 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 affect 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 Largent Amendment, and let each child and each potential parent have the right to an individual evaluation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly agree that campaign finance reform must be passed by this House and this Congress and I remain committed to working with my colleagues to ensure swift passage of the Shays-Meehan bill. The present campaign finance system is a blot on our democracy. In fact, if it is not tamed, if we do not fix this broken system, future historians may write that American democracy had a good 200-year run but then like Roman democracy it evolved into an oligarchy. We must fix this. The public already believes, partly correctly, that this House does the bidding mainly of the special interests and the big money people and that the little people, the ordinary people, cannot really affect what we do. There is more than an element of truth to that. The Shays- Meehan bill is a great and essential step, but it is limited. It deals with the soft money plague, it deals with the sham issue ads that advocate for a candidate or against a candidate, but if we pass the Shays-Meehan bill, as I believe it is essential that we do, it will reform us all the way back to 1992 when I first came here and we were talking about the great need for campaign finance reform. Mr. Chairman, this substitute cleans up the system. It says for those who opt into it, we are not giving an advantage to candidates of great personal wealth or who sell themselves out to the special interests or to incumbents. We are going to level the playing field. Everyone will get a free frank and cheap TV ads and public financing; almost complete, limited amount but almost complete public financing for the campaign. That is the only way to change our system from what it is becoming, a system of one dollar, one vote, back to what it was supposed to be, a system of one person, one vote. We have to give challengers a real chance at incumbents. We have to make sure that we do not lock in incumbents, millionaires or celebrities. We have to restore democracy to this great country and preserve our democracy. I submit that ultimately we will have to do this. This is the best way to do it. I urge support for the clean money substitute which will also be on the ballot in New York this year. I assume that we will become the next city and State to advance this cause.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise strongly to oppose this Kolbe amendment and the Hefley amendment. The amendment is an attempt to gut the recent executive order issued by President Clinton which added sexual orientation to the nondiscrimination policy of the Federal Government. That executive order was not about special privileges, it was about fairness and equality. Many departments in the Federal Civil Service have already implemented their own policies against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. These policies, however, lack uniformity and consistency. This executive order is necessary to remedy these inconsistencies by promoting uniformity in nondiscrimination policies in the Federal Government with respect to sexual orientation. It is time for Congress to stand up for the basic American value of a worker or anyone else being judged in the workplace on the basis of job performance, not on an irrelevant factor, whether that irrelevant factor be race or color or creed or religion or national origin or sex or gender or sexual orientation. Poll after poll has shown overwhelming support in the American public for the basic premise that lesbian and gay workers should be treated fairly in the workplace. One poll recently indicated that 80 percent of the American public believes that homosexuals should have equal rights in terms of job opportunities. It is elementary, Mr. Chairman, that people should be treated fairly and equally regardless of factors over which they have no control, such as race or color or creed or national origin or sex or sexual orientation. Mr. Chairman, we talk a lot here about American ideals and American values, and one of the chief American values was set forth in the Declaration of Independence, where it says we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and so forth. The history of the United States is a history of the expansion of the definition of that phrase, that all men are created equal. In 1776 that did not mean women, did not mean black people, did not mean Native Americans, did not mean anyone other than white males. We have spent 200 years expanding that definition. Before the Civil War we had 100 years of turmoil and politics and riots to expand that to include people of different races. We have now at least professed to include women. The only group which someone can still stand up and say, without being ridiculed off the stage, is not included in the definition of equality are people of different sexual orientation, are gays and lesbians and transgender individuals. Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that we begin the process of expanding the promise of the Declaration of Independence to include the last unincluded group, gays and lesbians and transgender people. I think the American people support fairness and equality. It makes sense, if someone is qualified to do a job, he or she should not be denied a job based on irrelevant factors. More than half of the Fortune 500 companies and most Members of Congress already have their own policies to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It is about time that the Federal Government as a whole follows suit. That is the bottom line, and after we deal with discrimination in employment, then we will deal with discrimination in public accommodation, housing and other things. Right now it is elemental that this executive order is the least thing to do. So I urge that the amendment be defeated. The President should be commended for the executive order. I urge my colleagues to reject the Hefley amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to mark the passing of one of the greatest, most innovative, and diversely talented artists of our time. Jerome Robbins, age 79, passed away last Wednesday night in his apartment in New York after suffering a stroke earlier last week. Jerome Robbins loved the stage. From his early years in dance, to his illustrious and well marked career in choreography and directing, he put his entire self into his work. The integrity of his productions, the ability to roam the expanse of artistic expression without boundaries is what helped him make his mark. While his theater credits include such well known productions as ``Gyspy,'' ``West Side Story,'' and ``Fiddler on the Roof,'' it was in ballet that he felt the freedom in which to create. It was through this freedom that he helped give America its own identity in the world of ballet. His first ballet, ``Fancy Free,'' later adapted into the Broadway musical ``On the Town,'' was Jerome's attempt to create a style of dance belonging to the United States. The youthful spirit of the show combined traditional ballet with more popular dances like the Lindie. Jerome created a dance that was the face of America. Jerome captured the spirit of the country and proudly displayed it on stage. He was an innovator, a paradigm, a great artist whose absence will be felt in the ballet and theater community for a long, long time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the DeGette amendment to strike the ban on abortion funding for women in Federal prisons. This ban is cruel and unwarranted. Mr. Chairman, a woman's sentence to prison 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 between 12 to 40 cents per hour at prison jobs. They are totally dependent on the prisons for their health services. They cannot possibly finance their own abortions, and therefore, without the passage of this amendment, they 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. They will almost certainly be forced to give up their children at birth. Why should we add to anguish by denying them access to reproductive services? I know full well the authors of this bill 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, they have instead targeted their restrictions on helpless women in prison. Well, watch out, America. After they have denied reproductive health services to all women in prison, Federal employees, women in the armed forces and women on public assistance, then they will try again to ban all abortions in the United States. And they will not stop there. We know that many of them want to eliminate contraceptives as well. Mr. Chairman, it is a slippery slope that denies the reality 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, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the authorizing subcommittee on the Legal Services Corporation, I rise today in strong support of the Mollohan amendment to restore or to increase funding to this crucial program. The LSC was authorized by the Nixon administration in 1974 to ensure at least a minimum level of access to the system of civil justice for those who could not otherwise afford it. In most areas, little or no legal services were available for the poor before Federal support for this crucial program was initiated. Today, there is little chance that most States and municipalities, already hard-pressed to meet budgetary demands, will take on the additional obligation of providing legal services if the Federal funding is substantially reduced, as proposed in this bill. This is especially true, of course, in light of the Supreme Court's recent ruling on the IOLTA question, which will remove a major funding of the legal services. A study released by the American Bar Association 2 years ago concluded that approximately 80 percent of poor Americans do not have the advantage of an attorney when they are in serious situations in which a lawyer's advice and assistance in their civil law matters would make a crucial difference. Even before the 1996 cutback in Legal Services funding, local legal services programs were able to meet only a small fraction of the demands for their services. A study in 1993, revealed that nearly half the people who actually applied for assistance were turned away because of lack of program resources, and that was before the funding cuts. With legal services funding considerably depleted and with the IOLTA decision, it is certain that even more people are being denied legal services because they cannot afford it and their Government will not help them get it. Cutbacks in legal services were implemented under the assumption that many attorneys were using Legal Service funds to focus on political agendas and class action lawsuits rather than helping poor Americans solve their legal problems. The political agenda's allegation I do not believe was ever true. But, in any event, Congress subsequently passed laws to address these concerns and they should not be before us today. The Legal Services Corporation helps those who cannot otherwise help themselves. One out of every four children under 6 and one in every five children under 18 lives in poverty. Seventy percent of all legal services cases deal with children. More than 2 million children received assistance from Legal Services grantees in 1996 alone. The great reduction of Federal funding incorporated in this bill will deny these children legal assistance for obtaining financial support from an absent parent, a decent home to live in, adequate nutrition and health care, relief from a violent living situation, or access to education and vocational skills. Legal Services also represents many senior citizens who could not otherwise afford representation. It must be acknowledged, finally, that contrary to the arguments of those opposing Legal Services funding, pro bono work alone cannot possibly provide the same caliber and quantity of legal services that the Legal Services Corporation does. Pro bono services are now at an all-time high. But even if this level of services were doubled or tripled, it would fall short of what would be necessary to replace services now being provided by Legal Services attorneys. Moreover, the great reduction in legal services contemplated in this bill for all practical purposes eliminate much of the legal services that we have now, would destroy the referral structure and training through which pro bono services are provided. Mr. Chairman, this Nation rests on a foundation of access to and fair treatment by our legal institutions. The Legal Services Corporation was created under President Nixon with bipartisan support in order to ensure that at least a minimum level of access to our legal institutions would be available everywhere in the United States. The current trend of reductions in the budget could lead an outside observer to believe that Congress has changed its mind and is no longer interested in the legal rights of those that do not have the monetary resources to go fight for them. I sincerely hope that is not true. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to maintain at least a minimal level of funding to support this program and by so doing to support the rights of those who need their help the most in order to be heard.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, if the gentleman will not accept the amendment, I have to say a 10 percent cut is a very heavy cut. We have a choice, and I will press the amendment. We have a choice. If the amendment goes as it is, then it is a 10 percent cut to HOPWA. I do not see how my colleague can rationally say that it will make a material difference to the space station whether it gets 2.1 billion or 2.098, or whatever it is, billion dollars.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hinchey amendment. Let me start out by voicing my agreement with the comments of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). To a large extent, this debate is taking place in a context that it should not be taking place in, the context of large cuts in veterans services. This is the richest country in the history of the planet, but we are wasting too much of those resources, too much of government's resources which could be spent on helping veterans and on other worthy purposes, on tax breaks for the richest people in our society. But within the amount of money we make available for veterans, the intent of VERA was to distribute the VA's resources equitably to take into account population shifts and needs in growing States. We know that and do not object to that. But the actual plan has not worked out that way. What do we see? We see professional staff shortages due to staff buyouts, buyouts apparently pushed in order to meet VERA quotas. We see a 20 percent cut in the per patient budget. We see an increase from 17 to 25 percent in the number of deceased patients, deceased patients judged to have received marginal or poor care. Inspectors noted that this represented a sharp rise, unquote, in poor care in the period after VERA took effect. We see decline in maintenance. We see no janitorial services on nights and weekends and other indices of poor services. The VA has consistently maintained that allocation should be based on its computer model that says that some regions have too high a per patient cost, rather than determining why those costs are higher than average. Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues believe in equitable treatment for veterans and quality care for all veterans, they will join us in questioning why some regions have suffered so severely since VERA took effect and in supporting the Hinchey amendment and also in increasing the overall budget.

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am informed that the chairman of the subcommittee would probably oppose the Hilleary amendment, in fact, I think he said that on the floor but I was not listening carefully enough, if we withdraw this amendment to the amendment. So, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the secondary amendment on the understanding that we will have support in opposing the Hilleary amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to point out two points. One, this highway was not on the priority list submitted for the ISTEA act or the T.E.A. 21 act by either the city or the State. Neither the governor nor the mayor submitted it. The second thing I would point out is that the gentleman from New York mentioned Randy Levine as having a letter in support. Randy Levine is the deputy mayor of New York, and it was the second paragraph of his letter that I read from in which he said, the administration of New York City would like this highway moved but not with the use of any funds unless they get an extra $300 million, which they have not gotten. They do not want it moved at the cost of other projects in New York, and that is what my amendment would accomplish.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain that. First of all, I offered the amendment for the first time 3 years ago, and we have adopted it 3 years running. These organizations have supported my amendment. They recognize the wisdom of it. I appreciate their recognition. The fact that one disagrees with someone on a lot of things does not mean one disagrees on everything.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, once again, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann), with strong support from the administration, from the Pork Busters Coalition, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Taxpayers Union, and Taxpayers for Common Sense, I rise to offer an amendment to keep valuable taxpayers' dollars from being wasted on an outrageous boondoggle in my district in New York City. The language we seek to add to this bill, with one change necessitated by the Chair's ruling on the first amendment, is the exact same language that has been included in this bill for the last 3 years. For 3 years, this Congress has said no, we do not believe this project is worthwhile. Nothing in the past 3 years has changed, except for one action by the other body; not the design nor the purpose of this project. The issue is simple. Donald Trump wants the taxpayers to put up $350 million so that he can take a highway, a 13-block long highway, that was rehabilitated for close to $90 million of taxpayers' money, the ribbon cutting was less than 5 years ago, this highway has a life expectancy of 35 to 40 years before the necessity for major expenditures will arise again, and having just refinished rebuilding this highway at a cost of close to $90 million, Mr. Trump wants to take 300 to 350 million additional taxpayers' dollars and tear it down and move it a few hundred feet and change a straight highway into a curved highway. Why? So that the residents in the new luxury apartments in the buildings he is planning to develop will have an unobstructed view of the Hudson River and The Palisades and the glorious sunsets in New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the view of The Palisades in New Jersey and the Hudson River. It is a beautiful river, but I do not think that we should be spending $350 million of the taxpayers' money so that Mr. Trump will be able to charge higher prices, higher rents for these new luxury apartments and will be able to sell these new condos for higher prices. If Mr. Trump wants better views so that he can get better prices for his apartments, let him put up the money. For him it is a pittance. Let him put up the money to move this perfectly good highway. I would like to point out that there is no transportation purpose to this project whatsoever. No one even claims it. In fact, from a transportation point of view, it is not a good idea to take a straight highway and substitute a 180 degree curved highway. The only purpose for this boondoggle is to line Mr. Trump's pockets. I would like to point out that every local elected official, the State Senator, the assembly member, the council member, the two local community planning boards, 4,000 local residents whose petition signatures I have here, say to us, do not waste the money on this boondoggle. Do not pass this project. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) and the Pork Busters Coalition and the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Taxpayers Union, the Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Clinton administration for the strong support they have given this amendment and the work they have done to put the brakes on this boondoggle. Now, the second amendment which was not ruled out of order has one difference. A Senator from my State, or a Member of the other body from my State, put $6 million in the TEA-21 Act in the dead of night in the conference committee for a study of moving this highway. This study is a boondoggle. It is $6 million to study something that is not going to happen because it would cost $350 million and this Congress is going to say, as it has before, this will not happen. We cannot, because of the rules, take that $6 million out of the bill. So, unfortunately, we will waste maybe $6 million. I will point out, I would like to read one paragraph from a letter written by the deputy major of the City of New York, to Donald Trump. ``Dear Donald, while the administration is fully committed to the Miller Highway relocation, it is critical that the funds for the project not redirect or act as an offset for Federal or State funds for other transportation and infrastructure projects in New York City, the city's numerous pressing highway and transportation needs that have Federal financial support and the administration would not be able to support a relocation proposal that reduced Federal commitments to these other projects.'' I will point out that all of the money, except for the $6 million, the other $294 million to $344 million for this project, would have to come out of the State's general formula money and the mayor obviously does not want that to happen because he intelligently understands that there are far more important things for the people of the city and State of New York than this boondoggle. All this amendment, as rewritten, as modified, would do is to make sure that, other than that $6 million which, unfortunately, we cannot touch because of the Rules of the House, no funds generally obligated for transportation in New York are diverted from other projects elsewhere in the State or the city for this project. Mr. Chairman, I again urge that this amendment be adopted. I include for the Record four letters, one from the Office of Management and Budget, one from the Taxpayers for Common Sense, one from the National Taxpayers Union, and one from the Citizens Against Government Waste. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, July 28, 1998. Hon. Jerrold Nadler, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Nadler: Thank you for your letter requesting the President to line item veto funds contained in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) for the Miller Highway project. The President has asked that I respond on his behalf. The Administration shares your concern that funding to convert Miller Highway to an underground tunnel is not appropriate. However, on June 25, 1998, the Supreme Court declared the President's authority to utilize the line item veto to cancel specific project funding unconstitutional. I understand that you may be offering an amendment to the Transportation Appropriations bill that would prohibit funds from being made available for the Miller Highway project, as has been enacted into law in recent years. The Administration would support such an amendment. As you recall, the Administration expressed concern regarding the excessive funding provided for so-called ``high priority'' highway demonstration projects prior to the passage of TEA-21. We are particularly concerned that these projects have not received appropriate scrutiny. Thank you again for bringing your concerns to our attention. Sincerely, Jacob J. Lew, Acting Director.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer a second amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have heard enough. I concede the point of order.

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