Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashana starts in 5 hours. The House should not be in session.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the central problem here is that this so- called investigation has been improper from its inception. Normally a claimant seeking to invalidate an election has the burden of proof of fraud or irregularities. He should look at the records of people who vote, the records from the board of elections, from birth records, from naturalization records, and show his evidence. Instead, the claimant has been given individual subpoena power, has used that power irresponsibly and to the deprivation of the constitutional rights of others. He has issued broad-based, fishing- expedition subpoenas, some struck down, some not yet. Hermandad got such a broad subpoena which invaded the constitutional rights of many people. The District Court said the subpoena was okay. Hermandad is appealing that decision, but 8 days after the district court decision, while it is appealing that decision, they come up with this bill of attainder here which we are asked to pass, demanding criminal prosecution of this private group which has no role or should have no role in this at all. Obviously, it is entirely politically motivated, as this entire process has been, and the motivation is to short-circuit the constitutional process and the constitutional rights of the individuals involved and should be voted down.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, as the sponsor of this bill, I would like to thank Chairman Kim and Ranking Member Traficant as well as Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar for their support of this legislation. As one of Ted Weiss's friends, I knew the compassionate, dedicated, hard working and loving man that many people never get to see in their elected officials. The unique personality that made Ted Weiss was crafted by a life that began in eastern Hungary on September 17, 1927. He later would arrive in the United States on March 12, 1938, on the last passenger ship out of Hamburg, Germany, before the end of World War II. Ted went on to earn his undergraduate and law degree in 4\1/2\ years from Syracuse University. He then worked as an assistant district attorney in Manhattan for 4 years. At that time, Ted was elected to the New York City Council and so began a lifetime of public service that was marked by compassion and principle. As one of Ted Weiss's constituents for the 16 years he served in Congress, I knew first hand how tirelessly he worked to bring issues important to the people whom he served to the forefront. Ted Weiss was one of the first elected officials in the Nation to focus attention on the need to increase funding for AIDS research, before the epidemic dominated discussions worldwide. He was a strong supporter of human rights throughout the world and right here at home. He received the Vietnam Veterans of America's highest award 2 years in a row for his work on behalf of America's veterans. Ted was not afraid to stand up for his convictions and make sure we understood why he held them so dear to his heart. We will be honoring Ted by naming this court house after him. I believe this suits the man who fought so hard to create a more just world. Being the sponsor of this legislation I hope to, in some small way, say thank you to my friend and colleague for bringing prestige and honor to the congressional seat that was known as the 17th District, now the Eighth District, in New York City.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Interfaith Assembly on Homelessness and Housing on occasion of its 10th anniversary. For 10 years now the Interfaith Assembly on Homelessness and Housing has served the homeless of New York City with sensitivity and understanding. This coalition has reached out to those in our society who are without shelter and offered a helping hand. Whether helping individuals rebuild their lives through the Speakers' Bureau and Project Success Program or tirelessly advocating for public policy that maintains decent and affordable housing for all New Yorkers, the Interfaith Assembly on Homelessness and Housing has provided the city of New York with a valuable service that we all ought to recognize and acknowledge. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the Interfaith Assembly on Homelessness and Housing for its dedication to the homeless, its fight for affordable housing, and its ability to effect change in a city that desperately needs it. Through testimonials that have touched the hearts of many and raised the consciousness of many more, this broad and diverse coalition, which includes a wide range of religious organizations throughout the city, ought to be proud of the work they have done to spread compassion and serve others. As we all know, there is a lot more that we must do to end homelessness in New York and across America. I look forward to working closely with members of this coalition in the battles ahead, and sincerely hope that our efforts will one day be unnecessary as our society comes to recognize that decent affordable housing is a right we all deserve.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, even if there were, even if there were, and they say that Legal Services sued farmers because allegedly they used child labor, this is not politicization. What my colleagues are really saying is that they do not want people's constitutional or legal rights enforced. This Congress and most State legislatures have, for the last century, been enacting laws to protect people against child labor and to protect workers' safety and workers' health and environment and all kinds of laws, building code enforcement. What Legal Services does is to enable people to enforce the rights granted to them by the Constitution of the United States, or by laws passed by the State or by the Federal Government. Without lawyers to bring these lawsuits, those rights are meaningless. What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are really objecting to is that the small people, the nonrich people, are causing problems for local establishments because Legal Services helps them bring lawsuits that say: you cannot do that, even if you have always done it, because the law says you cannot or the Constitution says you cannot; and if they are wrong, the courts rule that way. What my colleagues are really objecting to is poor people having the ability to go into court against the State of Minnesota. I do not know anything about the State of Minnesota's welfare reform law. Maybe it is a good law, maybe it is a bad law. But if someone in Minnesota thinks that his or her constitutional legal rights are being violated by that law, and Legal Services is willing to help them sue to vindicate their legal rights, if that law is allegedly violating rights that they have, that is a perfectly proper road, because otherwise what we are saying is that only middle class and rich people should have the right to sue against a State law. If the State law is not violating the Constitution or is not violating what Congress says, the courts will so rule. The argument really is that it is too much of a pain and too much of a bother to have poor people challenging local establishments, challenging what the State Legislature of Minnesota may have done, but what is the grounds of the challenge? The grounds of the challenge is that it is against the Constitution of the United States or against the laws that Congress passed, and if it is, it ought to be struck down; and if it is not, it will not be. Mr. Chairman, in summary, the attempt to eliminate Legal Services is shameful because it is an attempt to deny access to the courts to poor people to vindicate their rights, and I urge the adoption of this amendment to have a minimum level of legal services available.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this attempt in this bill to cut the budget of the Legal Services Corporation in half to $140 million, when as recently as 1995 it was over $415 million, is really an attempt to eliminate legal services for the poor for the reasons stated by some of the gentlemen on the other side of the aisle who say essentially that this is a rogue agency, that it politicizes justice, and so forth. They simply do not want poor people to have access to federally funded legal services because they do not like the result. However, Mr. Chairman, the real question is, do we or do we not believe in this country that justice is for everyone. We say equal justice under law. Equal justice: Is it for everyone? Is access to the courts for everyone, or are the courts only here to protect the large corporations and to adjudicate disputes among millionaires and divorces for celebrities? Are the courts here to protect people when their rights are being violated, subject to evictions, or being fired improperly, or being discriminated against, or being cheated out of money; or are the courts only for rich people or upper middle-class people who can afford lawyers? In the New York City housing court, which disposes of hundreds of thousands of cases every year, 99 percent of them eviction cases, 90 percent of the tenants have no lawyers at all. The landlords have lawyers, the tenants have no lawyers, and they are subject to very rough justice, if one can call it justice. They only wish the Legal Services Corporation had a much bigger budget, because these people need legal services or they cannot vindicate their rights when they are evicted, even though they have defenses which they do not understand because they are not lawyers. Now, my colleagues say that this agency has politicized the process, that they bring political lawsuits, and an example was given a few minutes ago of the agency, the Legal Services in Wisconsin, I think it was, that sued against that State's welfare reform law, brought a lawsuit against the welfare reform laws. Another example was given of Legal Services Corporations that sued farmers.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. So in effect you would still have a bond. It would not be a negotiable bond.

Mr. NADLER. Call it what you will. We have been taking the money out of the Social Security trust fund and using it to fund the deficit. And what you are proposing----

Mr. NADLER. Which is considered the safest investment, aside from putting it under the mattress or investing it in private stocks or bonds which are less safe; you must buy government bonds, and that is what has been done with it. What would you do with this money if you are not buying government bonds, which you then characterize as whatever you characterize it as, theft, where would you put the money in the trust fund when you are repaying it?

Mr. NADLER. Okay. My question is what would you do with--my understanding of the trust fund has always been that since 1935, when Social Security was enacted, the law has always provided that all money that comes into Social Security that is not paid out must be put into government securities.

Mr. NADLER. Using it for other purposes. And under your plan you say we would use a certain amount of the surplus to repay the trust fund.

Mr. NADLER. Would the gentleman yield for a question? I was just listening fascinated. I must say I am here for the next special order but I was listening to your presentation. The question struck me. You say that we have been borrowing from the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the Members of this House and this Congress and this country to take a close look at the facts surrounding the planned launching by NASA of the Cassini space probe to Saturn next month. Then we must do a very simple thing: We must reconsider that launch. I support space exploration, Mr. Speaker. I deeply believe that discovering more about our solar system, as the Cassini probe is designed to do, has the potential to yield crucial data about our universe and to enrich the lives of all of us here on Earth. But we have to ask, at what cost, at what risk? We must look at the Cassini probe objectively and responsibly, considering all the facts available to us. We must look at the danger. We must think about that danger realistically and critically. We must, with open eyes, take the responsibility of ensuring that lives are not put needlessly at risk. The Cassini space probe will carry 72.3 pounds of plutonium-238 as fuel to power the probe's instruments. Plutonium-238 is 280 times more radioactive than plutonium-239, the material used in atomic bombs and nuclear reactors. This plutonium will be stored in three radioactive thermoelectric generators, or RTG's. Now, it is well-known that plutonium is one of the most toxic, most carcinogenic, most deadly substances known. So if we intend to launch this into space, it is incumbent upon us to ask, what are the risks? What happens if the rocket containing the Cassini probe with all this plutonium, all of this toxic carcinogenic material, explodes? What happens if it crashes? Will the plutonium escape into the atmosphere? Will it cause potentially millions of cancer cases and fatalities? NASA claims this cannot happen. NASA says the plutonium pellets and the RTG's are heavily shielded and will survive any explosion, will not be dispersed into the atmosphere; the shielding will hold them. But Dr. Horst Poehler, for 22 years a scientist for NASA contractors at the Kennedy Space Center, provides a different analysis. He points out that the so-called heavy shielding consists of an iridium shell, 3/128 of an inch think, two one-quarter-inch graphite shells, some insulating foil, and a one-sixteenth of an inch aluminum housing. As Dr. Polar says, the shielding around the plutonium is really fingernail thin, hardly what one would call heavily shielded. Alan Kohn, who for 30 years was a NASA emergency preparedness operations officer for NASA, puts it this way: ``They call the RTG's indestructible, just like the Titanic was unsinkable.'' Common sense would seem to suggest that these plutonium casings are not impervious to damage. But we do not have to rely on common sense, Mr. Speaker. We can look at NASA's own reports. In the final environmental impact statement for the Cassini mission, NASA acknowledges that there are three main contingencies in which plutonium could be released. First, it could be released in an explosion during launch, if the capsules, RTG capsules, then impact on a hard surface. Second, NASA says, plutonium could be released during the subsequent flight up to orbit, if an accident occurs while the probe is flying over Africa and the capsules then impact on rock surfaces below. Third, plutonium could be released in 1999 when Cassini returns to Earth after flying to Venus for a fast and low fly-by of the Earth. In what NASA calls a slingshot maneuver, Cassini is designed to use Earth's gravity to increase its velocity so that it can reach Saturn by buzzing by, buzzing past the Earth, less than 500 miles up, at 42,000 miles per hour. If there is a slight miscalculation, or a slight defect in the rocket burn in outer space for the midcourse correction, and Cassini comes in too low, it could burn up in the Earth's atmosphere, and its plutonium payload would be dispersed to the winds. These are the scenarios which NASA itself cites as ways in which an accident could take place. Now, we must ask, what would be the result of such an accident? NASA has some ideas about this, too. If the plutonium comes down on natural vegetation, NASA speaks of decontamination methods. What are the decontamination methods NASA recommends? If it comes down on natural vegetation, NASA says, remove and dispose of the topsoil, relocate animals. In other words, eliminate the farms. If it comes down on an agricultural area, its proposal is to ban future agricultural land use. Eliminate the farms. And if plutonium rains down on a populated area, on an urban area, NASA says, ``Demolish some or all structures, relocate affected population permanently.'' Mr. Speaker, as a representative of part of New York City, I, for one, do not consider tearing down some or all structures and relocating the population permanently to be acceptable solutions. What if the probe breaks up in the atmosphere on its 1999 fly-by? NASA thinks that much of the plutonium fuel would disperse as ``vapor or respirable particles,'' the form in which lethal lung cancer doses of plutonium could be breathed in by thousands or millions of people. NASA goes on, ``Approximately 5 billion of the estimated 7 billion to 8 billion world population,'' that is billion, not million, ``approximately 5 billion of the estimated 7 billion to 8 billion world population, could receive 99 percent or more of the radiation exposure.'' In other words, most of the world's population would be exposed to radiation in that eventuality. NASA thinks the cancer death toll from such an accident would be only 2,300 people; only 2,300 extra people would die of cancer if an accident happens to Cassini. Independent scientists cite figures closer to 20,000, or even 200,000, and some say millions. These are the dangers posed by the Cassini mission. These are the dangers NASA itself admits are within the realm of possibility. So why is the mission going forward? Why are there only weeks left before Cassini is scheduled to be launched? Why are we taking this risk? Is this risk justified? How do we justify putting at risk the lives of thousands or millions of people to gather information about outer space and about Saturn? Because NASA said that although any of these accidents would be devastating, they are very unlikely. But we have to look at the odds and see how unlikely they are and see not just what we want to see, but what the facts are. We have made that mistake before. NASA has made that mistake before. Before 1986, NASA put the odds of a catastrophic space shuttle accident at 1 in 100,000. Then the Challenger blew up. Not surprisingly, after the Challenger disaster, even with all of the improvements, all the safety improvements made to the space shuttles as a result of the investigation into the Challenger disaster, the odds of a space shuttle, of a catastrophic space shuttle accident are now stated to be not 1 in 100,000, but 1 in 76. This time NASA says the odds of something going terribly wrong are 1 in a million. Mr. Speaker, very few events which can be affected by human error are 1 in a million. Which is more likely, that an unnamed engineer might completely by accident put a gasket in backwards, or that any of us will walk outside later tonight and immediately be struck by lightning? There are other reasons to doubt the 1 in a million estimate. Cassini is scheduled to be launched by a Titan IV rocket. In the past, Titan IV rockets have exploded during launch about 1 time out of 20. That is 5 percent of the time; 1 time out of 20, not 1 time out of a million. As for the possible success of the 1999 fly-by, in science one can only know the odds through empiricism, through tests and experiments and experience. There have been only two similar Earth fly-bys involving U.S. space devices. Can we be confident of any odds advanced with such limited data? In response to these objections, NASA said a great deal about the time and money already invested in this mission. But those arguments are not a defense. They boil down to we have gone to so much trouble, so let us close our eyes and hope everything goes OK. Let us play Russian roulette with thousands of people because we have already gone to a lot of trouble. That is not enough of a justification to take the sort of risks that have made 30-year veterans of NASA stand up and object. Opposition to the Cassini mission is not a case of Chicken Little saying, the sky is falling. In fact, I would say right now that the sky is not about to fall immediately, in all likelihood. Cassini may very well be launched in October, and everything may go fine. The odds are it will go fine, but the odds are not big enough: Five percent of Titan IV launches, that it will explode, that when we are talking about the possibility of a disaster that could kill thousands or millions of people, 5 percent odds of a disaster are pretty high odds. The Cassini mission is like a game of Russian roulette. You put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. The chamber might be empty, you might live, but then again, you might not, especially if you do this over and over again. And Cassini is just one in a continuing series, the biggest so far, the most plutonium, if we are going to do this again and again and again, and when we have 20 such launches and 30 and 40, eventually the chamber is going to be loaded, and there is going to be a catastrophe. That is not a risk we ought to be willing to take. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that very real scientific questions have been raised and they must be answered before we permit this and other missions like it to go forward. That is why I have invited my fellow Members of Congress to join in signing a letter to President Clinton asking him to delay the launch of Cassini, not cancel it but delay it, until a detailed, realistic, real, not propaganda, threat assessment has been conducted. The time to reconsider this mission is now. As elected officials, we must have the courage to do so. I only pray that the President will have the courage to say, ``Stop this game of Russian roulette and let us take a hard, hard look,'' before we have a Challenger disaster that does not put 7 lives at risk, but 7,000, or 7,000,000, or 7 million. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this motion to restore funding to the National Endowment for the Arts. I am grateful that the other body has more clearly understood the value of the NEA and has in its wisdom not only rejected efforts to eliminate the agency, but has also rejected efforts that would have dramatically altered the fundamental structure and mission of the NEA. The NEA has a proven track record of supporting the creation of excellent art and facilitating Americans' access to it. For 30 years the NEA has helped bring art and culture to those who otherwise would be without it. The NEA is sometimes accused of being elitist, but just the opposite is the case. Before the NEA, there were 38 orchestras in the country just 30 years ago. Today there are more than 1,000. Before the NEA, there were 37 professional dance companies. Now there are 300. Before the NEA, 30 years ago, only 1 million people attended theater each year. Today more than 55 million attend. All of this because of the NEA. The NEA plays a crucial role in the nonprofit arts industry, which supports 1.3 million jobs and generates more than $3.4 billion in Federal income taxes. We cannot afford either culturally or economically to eliminate the NEA. I am especially pleased that the House of Representatives will now finally be allowed to vote on whether or not to fund the NEA. Earlier this year the leadership of this House took extraordinary steps to prevent the House from even considering funding the NEA. On the controversial vote on the rule, several Members of Congress who have supported the arts in the past and had pledged to support the NEA failed to do so at that critical moment. I hope that these Members in particular will seize this opportunity to demonstrate their support for the NEA by voting for this motion to instruct conferees. I urge all of my colleagues to support the National Endowment for the Arts and to vote to accept the Senate funding level of $100 million for the NEA.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the School of Visual Arts, located in my district in New York City. The School of Visual Arts was established in 1947 by Silas Rhodes and has since grown to be the largest independent college of the arts in the country. The school has a student population drawn from 44 States and 53 countries, and a faculty comprised of full-time working professionals. Mr. Rhodes, who has continued as director, founded the school on the idea of combining access to the professional world of art with superior art education. He has accomplished this by bringing working artists into the classroom. As instructors, these professional artists offer the students a solid foundation in craft as well as exposure to current art world expression. Working toward this goal, the school also has four art galleries, including one in the heart of SoHo, a visual arts museum, a radio station, and it offers students in the film and video department more hands-on experience than any other comparable degree program. Additionally, with the rapid advancement in computer technology and influence on the working world, the School of Visual Arts has impressively kept up to pace. The school became the first college to offer both a bachelor degree and a master of fine arts degree in computer art and maintains a 1-to-1 student to computer ratio. The School of Visual Arts offers both undergraduate and graduate degrees in the traditional fine arts, but has expanded the study of art to include advertising, graphic design, animation, art education, computer art, film and video, illustration and cartooning, interior design, photography, and art therapy. In addition to the full-time students, there are currently more than 4,000 members of the community taking advantage of the continuing education classes that are offered. The art education department also provides art classes to public school children from all five boroughs of New York City. The school also participates in numerous volunteer art projects, serving communities who otherwise have very little access to the arts. In celebration of the School of Visual Arts 50th anniversary, the school will present Art Awareness Week, designed to inform the public about the importance of art in society and about the different variations of art. In the coming months the school will host 45 events throughout the city and has published a book entitled ``School of Visual Arts Gold: Fifty Years of Creative Graphic Design.'' I would like to congratulate the school on 50 years of excellence in art education. I am proud to have this fine institution in my district.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.

Mr. NADLER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we all know that there have been many, many complaints and horror stories about the conduct of some health maintenance organizations or HMO's. It is news to no one that HMO cost- cutting measures are fast becoming an issue of vital concern and often life and death to many of our constituents. We witnessed the subordination of health to profits just last year during the debate over the so-called drive-through deliveries, and some Members have introduced legislation dealing with drive-through mastectomies. It would certainly be silly for Congress to attempt to deal with this problem procedure-by-procedure, to have one bill for mastectomies and another for tonsillectomies, and so forth and so on. Many of the States have enacted legislation to deal with this problem, but the State legislation cannot impact Medicare and Medicaid, and for that matter, is barred from dealing with employer insurance where it is self-insured because of ERISA. These two amendments would protect HMO patients on two fronts. One amendment would simply say that most insurance contracts say that they will have a list of covered services, and say they will pay for any of those covered services, whether it be a gall bladder operation or whatever, if it is determined that that service is medically appropriate and necessary. This amendment says it is the doctor, the health care professional dealing with the patient, who makes the determination whether it is medically necessary and appropriate, and that no funds can be spent to reimburse an HMO unless their procedures say that the doctor makes that determination, not a utility reviewer sitting thousands of miles away at a computer console. We all have heard complaints from doctors saying that they spend two-thirds of their time arguing with people who have never seen the patient about whether the patient needs a CAT scan or to see a specialist or needs an operation. This amendment simply says the doctor dealing with the patient determines what is medically necessary and appropriate and not someone else. The second amendment says that when the doctor or the nurse or the physical therapist determines whether a service is medically necessary and appropriate, that decision should be made on the basis of medical necessity, not on the basis of cost. This amendment says that one cannot fund an HMO if the procedures of that HMO give an incentive to the doctor to effect that decision. One cannot say to the doctor, ``If you determine too many people need CAT scans, too many people need to see a specialist, we will pay you less money or we will knock you out of the plan; if you determine that very few people need expensive services, we will pay you more money.'' That sets up an institutionalized conflict of interest. If someone came to a Member of the House and said, ``We will pay you if you vote this way or that way,'' that would be called bribery, it is a crime. But if someone comes to a doctor, if the HMO comes to a doctor and says, ``We will pay you more money if you decide that Mr. Smith and Mrs. Jones together do not need certain services,'' that sets up an institutionalized conflict of interest between the doctor's medical judgment and his pocketbook, and we should have no such conflicts of interest. These two practices of someone other than the doctor saying why is it medically necessary, someone who has never seen the patient, and offering the doctor monetary incentives to make cheaper decisions and penalties if he makes more expensive decisions, put cost ahead of health, and they must be stopped. So these two amendments say Medicare and Medicaid cannot pay for HMO services unless those procedures are changed so that the doctor makes the decision of what is medically necessary and appropriate, not the insurance company, and so that doctors are not pressured by financial incentives to decide what medical procedure is necessary. Mr. Chairman, I understand that we have not gotten a waiver for these amendments from the Committee on Rules and that they will be ruled out of order, but I thought it important to air this on the House floor, and I will not request a vote on the amendments. I will save the gentleman the trouble of making his point of order.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, public broadcasting plays a crucial role in our culture. It makes available to all Americans important programming which may not be commercially viable and certainly not available to those who cannot afford cable TV. For a relatively small investment by the Federal Government, Americans are able to have access to thought- provoking programming which, without public broadcasting, would go unseen. Public broadcasting not only adds richness and texture to the lives of Americans nationwide, it provides an important service in educating and enlightening both children and adults. Constituents, thousands of them, call me and write me and tell me how important the public broadcasting station is to their families and how much they enjoy and benefit from its programming. From ``Sesame Street'' to ``Mr. Roger's Neighborhood,'' the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has a long tradition of providing quality children's educational programming that parents trust. The CPB has also helped broadcast a wide variety of cultural programs, including dance and musical performances, ``Masterpiece Theater,'' and the popular series on the Civil War. The CPB also helps fund National Public Radio, which millions of Americans have come to depend on for information and news. Mr. Chairman, we ought to fully fund the CPB and reject efforts to cut its funding. I urge Members to oppose and reject this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Hefley amendment to cut funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting [CPB]. Public broadcasting plays a crucial role in our culture. It makes available to all Americans important programming which may not be commercially viable and certainly not available to those who cannot afford cable TV. For a relatively small investment by the Federal Government, Americans are able to have access to thought-provoking programming which, without public broadcasting, may go unseen. Public broadcasting not only adds richness and texture to the lives of Americans nationwide--it provides an important service in educating and enlightening both children and adults. In my own district, the CPB helps fund Channel thirteen, which offers diverse educational and cultural programming that is highly valued by the people of New York. Every year, I receive numerous letters from my constituents expressing their appreciation for the services that Thirteen provides. They tell me how important the station is to their families and how much they enjoy and benefit from its programming. From ``Sesame Street'' to ``Mr. Roger's Neighborhood,'' the CPB has a long tradition of providing quality children's educational programming that parents trust. The CPB has also helped broadcast a wide variety of cultural programs, including dance and musical performances, ``Masterpiece Theater,'' and the popular series on the Civil War. The CPB also helps fund National Public Radio which millions of Americans have come to depend on for information and news. We ought to fully fund the CPB and reject efforts to drastically cut its funding. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Hefley amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, some things are no longer debatable. They may have been debatable 5 years ago, but despite some assertions from some gentlemen here, they are no longer debatable. One, needle exchange does not promote drug use. We are all opposed to drug use. Any number of studies and plenty of experience have found that needle exchange does not increase drug use. Also, needle exchange saves lives. These two propositions are not debatable except by people who are ignorant of what the truth of the matter is, from any number of studies and experience in 100 cities in the United States. Point two, if we want to send a message, we do not send a message at the cost of people's lives. Some people may think, oh, it is only junkies, let them die. They will not say it, but some people think that. That is tomorrow. But beyond that, it is not just junkies. It is their children who are born with AIDS, it is people they have sex with, it is people who have sex with people they had sex with, it is the whole transmission. One-third of all AIDS transmission in the United States today is because of our ignorant restrictions on needle exchanges. Do not pass this amendment. If Members vote for this amendment, they are voting to transmit AIDS and to have more people die of this scourge.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. How dare the opponents of choice force the most abhorrent restrictions on a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose into an appropriations bill and expect us to accept it? This bill provides funding for breast cancer and AIDS research, Head Start, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and student loans--all programs that benefit millions of Americans every day. Without pernicious amendments stripping the rights of millions of Americans, this bill would pass in a strong bipartisan manner. And yet, now we see the opponents of choice hold all these programs hostage to promote their extreme anti-choice views. This is an outrage. It is inappropriate, unwarranted, and unacceptable. The Istook amendment would essentially destroy the title X program which provides funding for those who seek health assistance, birth control, and help in fighting sexually transmitted diseases. Right now, reports indicate title X helps prevent 386,000 unintended pregnancies to teenagers annually. And yet, studies show that 80 percent of teens who don't already consult their parents would not seek care if they were required to. These restrictions, therefore, will deter young people from seeking any assistance at all, and, as a result, their diseases will go untreated, unwanted pregnancies and abortions will increase, and sexually transmitted diseases will spread unchecked. How can we possibly endorse risking the lives of these young men and women by forcing such onerous restrictions on their access to these programs? How dare you put their lives in jeopardy? We must not scare more teens away from responsible planning by eliminating the vital confidential component of these services. Let me say further, that I am appalled that some Members of this body are using the unfortunate story of the 13-year-old girl in Illinois, to urge support for this provision by stating that our Government is funding sexual predators. That is a disgusting misrepresentation of a tragic story. In these materials, circulated to Members of Congress, a sad tale of sexual abuse of a young woman is recounted. The young woman obtained birth control to protect herself from pregnancy caused by repeated statutory rape committed against her by a 37-year-old man. The group, in a bizarre and disgusting twist of logic, claims that we are supporting sexual predators by making title X funds available. Sick men who take advantage of young girls are criminals, and our laws are designed to punish them, not support them. It is absurd to say that title X caused this young girl to be abused. Anyone making that argument should be ashamed. Furthermore, as the bill stands, it already includes language to help prevent sexual coercion, so this Istook amendment is unnecessary in that regard. This legislation is one in a series of battles we have fought this year. These votes are not about particular Government programs or particular procedures, they are about the fundamental right to choose. I don't believe we need to vote on this issue at all--the Supreme Court has already spoken. Obviously, there are those in this body who feel differently. Still, a vote on whether or not to eliminate the right to choose ought to be a separate vote. No ban on abortion should proceed until there is a constitutional amendment to restrict the right to choose, which will never happen. But folks, by voting for this amendment we are undermining the Supreme Court, the President of the United States, and the American people by allowing vague language hidden in an appropriations bill to greatly restrict the right to choose. We cannot allow this abuse of the process, which is being manipulated in such a way to promote an extreme and unpopular postion-- repealing the right to choose. I urge my colleagues to denounce these amendments so that we can have a clean appropriations bill that funds desperately needed programs. Reject the Istook amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos].