Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the chairman of the subcommittee, for the fair and adequate consideration this bill has gotten in the subcommittee and in the committee. I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who did so much work for over a dozen years in originating the concept of this bill and in bringing it to where it is now. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and I are going to offer an amendment in a while which we will discuss at that time but let me say in general about the bill now, there has been a serious problem. Madam Chairman, it is generally, but not completely, but almost completely, with respect to benefits programs where an agency adopts an interpretation of the law, a perhaps overly restrictive interpretation of the law, and based upon that denies someone a benefit that he is entitled to, denies Social Security benefits. We had a lot of problems in the mid-1980s during the Reagan Administration about Social Security problems. We are having apparently currently a lot of problems about Medicare problems. Someone sues, someone gets a lawyer, goes to court and sues and says the agency is wrong and I am entitled to this benefit under these circumstances, and the court agrees. The agency appeals. The Court of Appeals agrees. So that person gets his benefit. But the next person, the agency does not change their policy. They deny the next person their benefit, and he or she has to go to court. And every individual has to litigate up to the Court of Appeals. Now this is wrong. Most people will not be able to afford attorneys or to get free legal help and to go through the problems, nor should they have to waste the money and the time, and especially a right delayed is often a right denied. Federal Agencies have long asserted the right to ignore the law of the circuit in order to advance issues of public policy, recognizing that the United States speaks for all Americans, and it is in that sense a litigant different from all others. While that is a debatable point, what is not debatable is that the so-called right of nonacquiescence has been abused under administrations of both parties. That abuse has been especially egregious in the areas of Social Security benefits, Medicare benefits and IRS enforcement where agencies for private citizens repeatedly have required private citizens to repeatedly relitigate settled issues of law. No one should have to spend years in court to win a right already recognized under law. The purpose of this bill is to establish precisely that point, that no one should have to spend years in court to win a right already recognized under law. That is why this bill, if we pass the amendments that we will talk about in a few minutes, should become law, and that is why I rise in tentative support of it pending the outcome of the amendment. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I am offering this amendment today, which would narrow the scope of this bill, to those areas where the record of abuse is clear, to those areas which in fact are the areas that motivated the introduction of the development of this bill over these many years. Those areas are the areas of benefits and where the public actually deals with the government on a daily basis, the areas of health care, Medicare benefits, the areas of Social Security and disability benefits, the area of dealing with the Internal Revenue Service. In those areas I think we clearly need a bill such as this to say to the agencies, to the Internal Revenue Service, to the Health Care Financing Administration, to the Social Security Administration, that you may not deny a benefit, you may not harass a taxpayer by insisting on the interpretation of the law denying the benefit or imposing the tax when the Court of Appeals has said you are wrong. You should not require the taxpayer or the person seeking Social Security or disability benefits to relitigate that on an individual basis. That is what this bill is about. But I think it is a mistake to apply the bill more broadly in other areas, because there may be unforeseen effects, and it would really require more congressional study to determine the need and the implications. For example, independent agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission play no role in government litigation and by virtue of their independence, this bill, without the amendment, might saddle them with rules without bringing important issues to the court's attention. The majority agrees there would be a mistake and has a manager's amendment to solve this problem, this particular problem. But we really do not know how many additional such issues there may be, and I think it would be a mistake to pass an overly broad bill where no compelling need has been demonstrated. The compelling need is with regard to benefits and with regard to the benefits that may be denied to people who need them and with regard to taxpayers dealing with the Internal Revenue Service. That is certainly 95 percent of the problem. It is what brought this bill here. It is the subject matter of the hearings that we held to determine the need for this bill, and I say let us fix the problem at hand and do it right. I will say one other thing on this amendment. Without this amendment, there will be very substantial opposition to this bill from the labor movement, opposition, I believe, not to be correct but, nonetheless, very substantial opposition, which will probably be more than sufficient opposition to prevent this bill from being enacted into law, especially given the fact that the administration has already told us they do not like the bill at all, with or without the amendment. So we have the problem of getting this bill into law to deal with the problem that we know needs dealing with in the face of very substantial opposition that would be eliminated by this amendment. Since this amendment would not eliminate any of the solutions to the problems the bill was designed to deal with, I urge the majority, I urge my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) to accept the amendment so we can enact the bill into law and deal with the problems it is intended to deal with. That is the argument. Let us deal with the problems we know are out there and let us do it in a way that is realistic in terms of being able to enact the bill into law so we have an accomplishment and so that we help the people that have to deal with the IRS and help the people that need benefits from Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and disability and solve the problems and not simply have a debate on the floor of the House but have a real bill that helps real people. So I urge all Members to accept this amendment.

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I believe that, subject to the amendment I am going to offer in a few moments, as soon as the bill is open to amendments, that this is an excellent bill, a bill worthy of support, and, unfortunately, an unnecessary bill. I say unfortunately because we should not have to do this. Agencies should not continue to deny benefits to people when the Circuit Court has said you are wrong in your interpretation of the law. That is not what Congress meant. Congress meant under these circumstances, whatever they may be, the person is entitled to Medicare or Social Security or disability or whatever the case may be. But we know that, under administrations of both parties, this has happened. It has happened repeatedly, even recently; and we should protect people from the necessity and the taxpayers, too. Because when there is a relitigation of the same points, the taxpayers are paying the money on one side, the individual on the other; and this is wrong. So I strongly support this bill; and I hope the majority, the distinguished chairman, will see his way clear to accepting the amendment so that we will have the votes to make sure that this bill is enacted into law.

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the very distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, the sponsor of this amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I want to simply observe that this amendment, like the last amendment offered by the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, is a worthy amendment and improves the bill. I urge its adoption. I urge all my colleagues to vote for it.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to, first of all, commend the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for the work she has done in bringing this problem to the attention of the committee and now to the House, and I wish that the amendment that I sponsored that was defeated a few moments ago had been passed. It would have taken, this is one of the problems that it would have taken care of, and one source of opposition to the bill in chief that would have been removed, and I hope that as we move forward with this bill in conference, if it passes the House, that we can work to alleviate the problems presented or illustrated by this amendment and by the amendment that I offered earlier so that we have a bill that in the end we can support, especially since we will need that support on final passage.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the removal of the name of the father of our country from Washington National Airport. While there are many people in American history deserving of recognition in their role in the development of our country, I do not believe that any of them made a larger contribution than our first President, a great patriot, George Washington. Let us forget for just a moment that Washington National Airport is named for the father of our country, but instead for someone who won the ``what are we going to name our airport lottery.'' Even in that situation, do we really want to follow the old Soviet Union model where we change the names of our cities and landmarks depending on the whims of whomever is in power? St. Petersburg which became Volgograd which became Leningrad and then became once more St. Petersburg. I don't think anyone on the other side of the aisle would appreciate it if, when Democrats regain control of the Congress we change the name of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building downtown to the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Federal building. I would like to ask my colleague on the other side of the aisle why they would deny George Washington an airport? No one on this side of the aisle denied Ronald Reagan his landmark by naming the largest federal building in Washington, DC, after our former President. No one objected. The building did not yet have a name. Why is it that you want to deny George Washington his due? Again, forgetting for a moment who this airport is named after, the name ``Washington National Airport'' is easily recognizable to shippers and tourists alike. When people come to our nation's capitol they see the name of the City they have come to visit. They see Washington and know they are in our nation's capital. Changing the name would cost the Airport Authority millions of dollars to change signs and pamphlets. Additionally, it would go against the wishes of the people of the region who provided the main support for Washington National Airport. These people are proud of the name of their airport, they are proud to be the gateway to our nation's capital. Ronald Reagan's legacy will be decided by history, and monuments to that legacy should not come at the expense of the wishes and desires of the local community and especially not at the expense of our first President, George Washington.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Amtrak authorization legislation before us. This is not the be all and end all that will save intercity passenger rail as we know it forever, but it does save Amtrak at least for the time being. This legislation allows $2.3 billion that was previously appropriated to be invested in Amtrak. That money is vital for Amtrak's survival. I am especially pleased that a conclusion has been reached to this impasse on this legislation, since my district contains Penn Station in New York City, the largest Amtrak station in this country. Amtrak is not only vital to intercity passengers, it is also the tracks in the Northeast corridor which carry commuter trains into New York City. These commuter trains bring millions of people into and out of New York City and Philadelphia and other cities in the Northeast corridor every day. Without adequate funding, the daily operation and safety of these tracks could come into question. Additionally, Amtrak employs over 20,000 people. It would have been shameful to allow these hardworking men and women to lose their jobs when $2.3 billion was waiting for them just on the other side of the tracks, or just on the other side of the impasse over this legislation. These tracks will be crossed today, and Amtrak, its employees, and, most of all, the passengers will benefit from our action. Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation for now. But I must say, I do not approve of the fundamental direction we are heading in, in which we say Amtrak must be self-supporting or else. I do believe that fundamental infrastructure such as passenger rail may need and should get government subsidy and government operating subsidies. That is not being done now under this legislation, and it is not in the cards politically in the near future, but I do believe that eventually we will come back to it, because we must maintain a national rail network, a national passenger rail network, not simply on corridors which can be made profitable; we must preserve service and increase service all over the country. For now, this is good legislation. I commend those who have participated in drafting it and on reaching agreement on it. I would urge all Members of this body to support this bill today.

Mr. NADLER

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. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, like the last resolution, this resolution gives the consent of Congress to the changes in a local compact, in this case the Washington Metro compact agreed to by Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia; provides for a number of different changes, and the changes have been approved by all three jurisdictions. Currently, the Metro Transit Police is the only local police force in the tri-State area not authorized to carry either their own weapons or another approved weapon except while on duty. Two jurisdictions, the Metropolitan Police and the Prince George's County Police, require police to carry their firearms when not on duty. The U.S. Park Police and U.S. Capitol Police have the option of carrying a firearm when not on duty. The current compact allows Metro Transit Police officers to carry their service firearms only while on duty in the system and in direct transit to and from work. The change that we are proposing here would allow the officer to carry the service-issued firearm while off duty, subject to the restrictions placed on local police forces in each jurisdiction while the officer is in that jurisdiction. A second change would require a public hearing only to raise a fare or rate or to make a major service reduction. The current compact requires there be a public hearing for any fare change, even presumably a reduction in the fare, or for the establishment or abandonment of any service, no matter how minor, with few exceptions. The notice period for a public hearing is reduced herein from 30 to 15 days, and the requirement that notices be posted in Authority offices, stations, and rolling stock is eliminated. The requirement is retained that the notice be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least once a week for 2 weeks, and further, as the Board may prescribe through regulations. Finally, the changes provide that criminal violations of any rule or regulation of the Metro shall be prosecuted in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which the violation occurred. Mr. Speaker, one or two of the changes gives some pause to me, and if this were proposed for the New York City system, I am not so sure I would support it. But since I believe that Congress ought to allow, when there is unanimous agreement among local jurisdictions, two States and the District of Columbia, we should defer to their wisdom. I urge the adoption of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this bill gives the consent of Congress to the compact between the States of Mississippi and Tennessee to establish the Chickasaw Trail Economic Development Agency. The compact establishes an economic development authority to determine the feasibility of establishing an industrial park in Fayette County, Tennessee, and Marshall County, Mississippi, and to assist in public-private partnerships to promote economic development in that bi- State area. The legislation simply restates the compact, provides that the validity of the compact will not be affected by any insubstantial differences in its formal language as adopted by the two States, and reserves to Congress the right to alter, amend, or appeal the joint resolution giving consent to the compact. Mr. Speaker, the congressional delegations of the two States support this bill, as do the two legislatures and both Governors. The subcommittee and committee unanimously reported the bill. I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, in that case, I have no further speakers. I urge the adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this bill, as the distinguished chairman said, is a momentous piece of legislation. We refer to it as the comma bill. It clears up the language in title 9 of the U.S. Code without making any substantive changes. Section 10(a) of the Code sets out four cases under which a court may vacate an arbitrator's award after application of one of the parties. However, section 10(a) contains what appears to be a fifth case in which an award may be vacated. In fact, it is clear from the context that section 10(a)(5) is intended to set out the circumstances under which the court may direct a rehearing by the arbitrators, and not a vacating of the arbitrator's award. It should therefore be placed into a separate subsection. The bill does this and clarifies the law, so I support this bill. I would only add that the chairman referred to the law clerk who brought it to our attention. He is the law clerk of the Appellate Division justice, the Honorable Richard Wallach, who is a constituent and longtime friend and associate of mine. I am glad that his office was on the ball and brought this to our attention. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2709. This bill would force the President to impose sanctions on entities that assist Iran's missile program, mostly Russian, perhaps some Chinese entities, perhaps some European entities as well. Mr. Speaker, others have expressed well the dangers that Iranian missiles, perhaps armed eventually with nuclear warheads, pose to Israel, to some of our Arab quasi-allies, and to American security interests. Russian help and Chinese help for this development is not a friendly act, and is the most profoundly irresponsible act, and the administration, for all its protestation, has shown a pattern of certifying when Congress passed this law that says, we do not want most-favored-nation treatment, we have seen that when we pass laws that say that this or that should not be done unless the President certifies that human rights are being adhered to or that nonproliferation is being adhered to, the certification comes whether the facts support them or not all too often. So I think it is time for Congress to step in and tighten the legal regime, as this bill does, to make it more clear that these sanctions must be imposed. I also think that, given the sometimes unclear circumstances as to whether the Russian Government has effective control over these entities, that it is good that this legislation applies directly to these business entities, and not simply to the foreign governments. So I support this legislation. I regret the necessity of it, but it is time to step in with this kind of legislation to reduce the likelihood that we will be faced with the kind of foreign policy catastrophe that will be presented by Iranian possession and threat of use of long-range missiles.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bid farewell to a very distinguished Member of my State's delegation. Floyd Flake has served in the House with honor, with sincerity, and with unwaivering commitment. He can serve as a model to all of us in this body: for over a decade, he has fulfilled a calling to public service, fighting the fights he believes in, representing his constituents with passion and nobility. In leaving this body, Floyd Flake is leaving this Nation richer for his service. The moral guidance he has given us and the example he has set for us will echo through this Chamber in the coming years, resonating with its obligation to the people of this country after he has gone. Now, our colleague is about to respond to another calling. With the chance to devote his full energies to the needs of his congregation, he will continue his lifelong commitment to service and justice. And though he will be in a new setting, he will continue to be an inspiration for us all. I can only say that it has been an honor serving with him, and I wish him all the best.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, since NAFTA we have converted a $2 billion trade surplus with Mexico to a $20 billion trade deficit. In 65 percent of union organizing elections, employers have threatened to move to Mexico or to another foreign country if workers have chosen the advantages of collective bargaining. Working people have gotten almost none of the benefits of our expanding economy, as real wages for the middle class have remained static and, for lower-income workers, have actually declined. NAFTA and fast track quite properly protect American investors who invest abroad and protect intellectual property rights, but they do not protect labor and environmental rights. They are imbalanced. We must have balanced trade agreements that protect not only investments and intellectual property, but also labor and environmental standards if trade is to serve all our people, and if our expanding trade is not to serve as a tool to be used to deny a fair share of our economic gains from filtering down to working people and to the middle class. Reject the fast track agreement as imbalanced.