Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill will impose stiffer penalties for thefts and acts of vandalism that involve a national cemetery. When someone desecrates a gravesite or steals a headstone, that is an especially vile crime, especially vile when it is a national cemetery where heroes of the United States are buried. It deserves appropriate punishment. So I commend the authors of this bill. I hope it will become law soon. I urge unanimous adoption. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] has adequately explained this bill. It is a very simple bill. It does something we certainly should do, to enable those American veterans who served in the Armed Forces after February 28, 1961, when the first American troops accompanied South Vietnamese troops on patrol, but prior to December 22, 1961, which is the current date in the current legislation in the incorporating charter of the American Legion, to enable them to join the American Legion. This does track the change Congress made for veterans' benefits. I hope that this bill is unanimously approved. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend and call attention to a project of passion and nobility, a project dedicated to the preservation of a world lost to us. It was a world of happiness and light. A world of families and children, of community and spirituality. It was the world of the Polish town of Luboml. In 1942, it was from this Earth untimely ripped--destroyed by an evil that marched across Europe leaving death in its path. More than 4,000 members of Luboml's Jewish population were killed by the Nazi barbarians. Only 51 survived. Now, thanks to the efforts of a New York businessman, Aaron Ziegelman, we are able to get a glimpse of this lost world. Mr. Ziegelman, who was born in Luboml, came to this country in 1938 at the age of 10. When he, his mother, and his sister left for America, more than 50 residents of the town came out to bid them farewell; only one of those residents survived the Holocaust. Mr. Ziegelman has made it his mission to keep alive the memory of those who perished: the memory not only of their deaths, but of their lives. In 1994, Mr. Ziegelman initiated the Luboml Exhibition Project. So far, the project has collected nearly 2,000 photographs and artifacts from more than 100 families and from archives from around the world. These include a hand-embroidered matzo cover; a photograph of three young girls smiling for the camera; a picture of Lubolm's bustling market day; a group portrait of the ``Luboml bicycling club''; a school identification card; a photo of an ice skating party. As Mr. Ziegelman said, ``Before they were victims, they were people,'' and therein lies the deepest sense of tragedy. Seeing life breathed into this perished world, one cannot help thinking of the hundreds, or even thousands, of towns just like Luboml. Towns where families were torn apart, where children were not allowed to grow into adults, where vibrant lives were cut short. Considering Luboml, this quintessential 20th-Century tragedy once again takes on a more concrete, more personal resonance. Thanks to the work of Mr. Ziegelman, we are once again reminded of the fundamental belief we are voicing when we say, ``Never Again.''

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, I rise in support of this measure which passed the Committee on the Judiciary unanimously with the support of all Members on both sides of the aisle. The chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, has done a fine job of explaining the bill, and I will not attempt to cover the same ground a second time. It has the support of the States involved in the compact of their congressional delegations and of the administration. It protects the discretion of Federal agencies to enforce the laws they are charged with enforcing. It is our responsibility under Article I of the Constitution to grant the consent of Congress to interstate compacts. I urge my colleagues to do so in this case. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, like the last measure that we just debated a few moments ago, this measure, which passed the Committee on the Judiciary unanimously, has the support of all the Members on both sides of the aisle on that committee. Again, the chairman has done a fine job of explaining it, and I am not going to repeat it. Again, this bill has support of both States involved in the compact, of their entire congressional delegations of both parties, and of the administration. It protects the discretion of the Federal agencies to enforce the Federal laws that they have to enforce. And, therefore, there is no reason we should not grant our approval under article 1 to the two States' interstate compact. I support this legislation. I urge my colleagues to do so. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Packard]. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] that the House suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 92, as amended.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1493. Mr. Speaker, this legislation would provide assistance to communities in identifying people who have been arrested who are either deportable criminal aliens or who are unlawfully present in the United States. It builds on successful pilot projects, such as the one in Anaheim, CA, which identified a substantial number of individuals who are either in the United States illegally or who might otherwise be subject to deportation. The bill would require the Attorney General to detail INS employees to certain selected local government jails and prisons in order to identify prior to arraignment deportable criminal aliens or aliens unlawfully in the United States. The program will be focused on jurisdictions having high concentrations of aliens who are illegally in this country. It would have the benefit of providing better information to immigration authorities and local governments about the extent to which illegal and criminal aliens are in our criminal justice system and would provide immigration authorities with the information they need to remove those individuals who should not be in the United States at all, much less to remain here to commit crimes. I want there to be no mistake, this Nation has benefited tremendously from immigration and from the contribution of the many millions of people who came here from other lands. In my own city of New York, immigrants are rebuilding old neighborhoods right now and contributing to a rebirth of our city. We should welcome and support them, and not confuse those many law-abiding immigrants with the few who would disregard our laws. But the United States has every right, as do all nations, to expect that its laws will be respected and obeyed. The enforcement of the immigration laws is the responsibility of the Federal Government. The failure of the Federal Government to do so has placed a real burden on some local communities, a burden which the pilot program established by this bill will help alleviate. I urge approval of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen]. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will comment very briefly, Mr. Speaker. This has nothing to do with section 245(i). I am glad we defeated the attempt to eliminate that last week. The people, in dealing with 245(i), are not criminal aliens, but this bill that does deal with criminal aliens and people who are here illegally, I simply want to commend the bipartisan nature of the cooperation, the bipartisan cooperation with which this bill was drafted and brought to the floor. Hopefully, it will be passed today. I urge all my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the extension of section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and to oppose this effort to blatantly force immigrants to endure unnecessary hardship. Section 245(i) enables prospective lawful permanent residents to adjust their status while in the United States. This provision generates, through fees, more than $150 million in additional annual revenues, reduces the caseload of U.S. consulates overseas, and allows immigrants to remain with their families and businesses as they adjust their status in the United States rather than being forced to process their adjustments abroad. This provision is designed to encourage immigrants to comply with the law and become legal residents. It punishes people for their infractions and fines them $1,000, and only then does it allow immigrants to adjust their status and become legal residents. If the provision did not exist, some immigrants may continue to evade the law in order to remain in this country and stay with their families. This provision is a practical and effective tool that has benefited the U.S. Government as well as thousands of now legal immigrants. If we fail to extend this provision, we will have shifted enormous workloads back to U.S. consulates abroad, sacrificed desperately needed funds, and forced undue hardship on legal immigrants and their families. We ought to extend section 245(i), and extend it permanently.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity today to continue a vital service to millions of people or to help in causing its demise. I think it important that we adopt the LaTourette-Oberstar amendment and the Oberstar substitute, which would provide the capital funds Amtrak needs and would not punish Amtrak's workers and those unfortunate enough to be injured in any possible accident. The need to fund Amtrak's capital program and provide operating assistance is obvious. The bill before us provides that funding at adequate levels. Unfortunately, the bill also includes provisions that are unacceptable to many of us in this body, to many in the other body and to the President. This House passed an almost identical bill last year and at that time we thought it was the only way that Amtrak could receive the funding it needs to continue. We know now this is not the case. We know that this bill died in the Senate last year precisely because of the objectionable provisions that are contained in this bill and will most likely meet the same fate again. We also know the President will likely veto this legislation as currently drafted. What must be removed to make this an acceptable and a good bill? The caps on punitive damages and noneconomic damages must be removed. To put a cap on punitive damages of $25,000 or three times the amount of economic loss, whichever is greater, says that the rich person who is damaged by deliberate negligence, by deliberate tort, we should punish the tort-feasor by three times as much as he is worth. But the infant or the low-income person, his pain and suffering is not worth that. His suffering is only worth the much lower amount. The straight cap of $250,000 on noneconomic damages on pain and suffering, that is not fair. That is not fair to those who are injured. It is wrong to arbitrarily place a value on an injured persons's loss or his life. The second issue that has no place in this bill is the circumventing of labor protections. This body, through this bill, has taken upon itself to determine the labor practices for Amtrak and its employees. Even Amtrak does not believe that these provisions are needed. Thomas Downs, chairman of Amtrak, stated that Amtrak was completely satisfied with the collective bargaining process under the Railway Labor Act. Even the amendment to the C-2 provision in this bill, he said, was not necessary. Amtrak does not experience significant costs in C-2 expenses. This is supposedly the most burdensome labor protection Amtrak employees have. The reason Amtrak needs this capital money and this operating assistance is because the competition from the federally subsidized interstate highway system makes it imperative that any passenger railroad have this kind of subsidy. Mr. Chairman, I would urge this Congress not to punish Amtrak, its labor, its management, and its passengers. We should support the LaTourette-Traficant amendment. We should vote ``yes'' on the Oberstar substitute and then we should pass a bill that will keep Amtrak viable for all Americans.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of New York Artists Equity Association (NYAEA), now celebrating its 50th anniversary. Since 1947, Artists Equity Association has been a strong advocate for legislation on behalf of visual artists, and has provided services to support the development of the visual arts in our communities. NYAEA not only fights for the future of the visual arts, but places the New York artistic community in the context of history, as a necessary component of society, one that enriches our lives. New York Artists Equity Association's mission of education, awareness, and support for the visual arts has provided the basis for its constant efforts. By promoting emerging artists in its wonderful Broome Street Gallery, it has successfully integrated those artists into the larger community. By preserving endangered visual art work, it assures the record of our rich artistic past. Through educational outreach, it has developed a new audience which is constantly expanding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend NYAEA, under the leadership of its Executive Director, Regina Stewart, for supporting visual artists at a time when the resources they receive from the government are simply not enough. NYAEA has provided support for many visual artists who otherwise would not have received help. Through referrals, legal services, and health care programs, the Association helps ensure economic stability for visual artists who might otherwise be forced to abandon their talents due to economic difficulties. By providing communication within the community, it helps establish a strong support base for issues relevant to artists' needs. I stand here today to thank New York Artists Equity Association for all it has done to advocate for visual artists, consistent with the needs of their community. I am proud that NYAEA is in my Congressional District, and that its work reaches far beyond my District to help visual artists in the larger community. I also want to thank one of the Association's Past Vice Presidents, Doris Wyman, who serves on my Arts Advisory Committee, consistently championing the needs of visual artists. Because of my ongoing work with this fine organization and their leadership, I know of their constant efforts to change regressive policies on the arts and I commend them. For fifty years, NYAEA has supported visual artists and been a passionate advocate for their causes. In the current climate, NYAEA's non-partisan commitment is especially valuable. I salute New York Artists Equity Association for helping to assure a stable artistic community--one that is, and always must be, an integral part of our heritage and culture.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Delahunt], for his leadership on this bill. I am proud to be a part of this effort to exempt internationally adopted children from the vaccination requirements of the INA. I want to thank my colleagues who have worked together in a bipartisan manner to correct this problem. Internationally adopted children face serious and unnecessary health risks as a result of this new law that went into effect last July. The provision requires immunization of all immigrants, even newborn infants adopted by U.S. parents. Forced immunization of children abroad in conditions that may be substandard exposes children to health risks from nonsterile needles, from out-of-date or improperly stored vaccines and from foreign doctors who may not follow recommended pediatric guidelines on vaccination. It should also be noted that vaccinations given to children who are malnourished or unhealthy, as are many children living in orphanages abroad, can actually create health problems. As a representative from the New York City area, where there are at least 1,000 adopted girls from China alone, I have heard directly from my constituents about the difficulties in getting a medical exemption from this requirement for their adopted children. I have letters from the State Department that specifically state that ``the law as it now stands does not allow an adopted child to receive a waiver due to concerns about the safety of vaccines in a given country or because they have made plans to be immunized upon their arrival in the United States.'' This bill would allow the children to be vaccinated here in the United States once they have arrived under the supervision of their adoptive parents in safe and clean environments instead of forcing them to undergo potential health risks abroad. I hope the action we take here today will address these concerns and correct this problem. It should also be noted that this bill simply represents a return to the policy that existed before July 1 of this year. The administration has indicated its support for exempting internationally adopted children from this provision and, in fact, would like to see the exemption expanded to all children. However, we have an opportunity today to correct a glaring problem and ease the fears of adoptive parents by passing this bill today, and I am hopeful the administration will sign this bill into law without delay. Finally, I want to thank families with children from China and the National Council for Adoption for all the hard work they have done on behalf of adopted children and their families to further this legislation. Their efforts were critical to building support for this measure. Again, I want to thank those of my colleagues who worked on this in a bipartisan manner.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, let there be no mistake. The amendments that we are considering here today do not make this bill acceptable. They do not provide the critical exception necessary to protect women in tragic circumstances from serious harm to their health. This bill is still unconstitutional, and is still in direct violation of the fundamental rights described in Roe versus Wade. This bill would still criminalize doctors for using their best medical judgment to protect the lives and health of women. This bill would still give a father who abused or abandoned a woman the right to sue her if she and her doctor determine that she needs to have this procedure. Not only does this bill infringe on the constitutional right to choose, but it rewards abusive fathers. This bill is still fundamentally flawed, because it is based on the principle that politicians, not doctors, ought to make medical judgments about what procedures are appropriate. I would urge every pro-choice Member who may be inclined to vote for this bill to carefully consider exactly why they are pro-choice. If you are pro-choice because you believe it is a woman's decision, not the government's, about whether or not to have an abortion, then I urge you to vote against this bill. If you believe that sometimes abortions are necessary to protect the health of a woman, then you ought to vote against this bill. If you believe that doctors should not be denied the option of using a medical procedure that they deem appropriate, then you must reject this bill. If you believe in the fundamental principles of Roe versus Wade, then you must not support this bill which severely restricts a woman's right to choose to have an abortion of a fetus that cannot live outside of the womb. This bill, unfortunately, is not about protecting women's lives. Instead, it is the result of a multimillion dollar campaign aimed at fundamentally limiting women's rights. If this bill becomes law, it will most certainly be challenged in the courts and the result may be a reexamination of Roe versus Wade. So I hope my pro-choice colleagues, who may be inclined to vote for this bill, realize that they are in effect asking the Supreme Court to reexamine the issues resolved by Roe versus Wade. Make no mistake, this bill is not about one particular procedure. It is about the right to choose. I urge my colleagues to defend a woman's right to choose, and to reject this dangerous bill. And let me close by quoting a letter from a woman in New York City who faced a tragic situation involving a fetus with a severely deformed heart, and who would have been affected by this legislation had it already become law. She writes, You must hear our voices before you vote on this misguided bill, as well as the voices of other mothers and fathers who weep over their empty cribs. We are not bad people. We are extremely unfortunate, suffering families trying to cope with personal tragedies. Please don't deepen our wounds by taking away our choices. Please vote against H.R. 1122.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.