Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Sherman].

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this latest atrocity in Jerusalem tears the heart out of all civilized people. It is another example of terrorism, which is a crime against all of us. It is not only a crime against all of us and against all concepts of civilized life, it is a crime against peace, and it is intended to be a crime against peace. The whole campaign by Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the last 2 years has been a campaign of terror, to make sure there will be no peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians and the neighboring Arab countries. Unfortunately, Yasser Arafat, head of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization, has played into their hands, into the hands of the terrorists, and has done so deliberately. He has his own political problems in the Palestinian constituency. We all appreciate political problems, but that is no excuse for allowing murder. It is no excuse for winking at murder, for encouraging murder. If the peace process collapses, as it seems to be doing, it will be on Mr. Arafat's head. The blame and the blood will be on his hands for playing with the terrorists. We must all remember in looking at this the key element of the entire Middle East peace process. The key element is land for peace. Israel will trade land to the Palestinians, will give up sovereignty, will give up control of land, and how much land and which land is to be debated, to be discussed, to be negotiated, but will give up land in return for peace. But this is not a symmetrical process. Land is tangible and once given up is very difficult or impossible to recover. Peace is a promise. So the peace process is that Israel gives up tangible land in return for a promise. And the peace process says we will spend a few years developing confidence. But what kind of confidence can Israel develop that she will be allowed to live in peace and security once she has given the Palestinians everything they are going to get, everything they want; if she is continually attacked and if men, women, and children in the streets of Israel are continually attacked by terrorist bombs; and if Mr. Arafat holds a day of unity with the terrorists, with the bombers, and kisses one of their leaders; if Mr. Arafat, when there is a terrorist bombing and the world is aghast, says to his people, Round up the usual suspects, and a week later releases them; when Mr. Arafat has broken every commitment so far he has made under the Oslo accords? Mr. Speaker, remember some of those commitments, some of the easy ones. Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization is supposed to repeal those provisions of the Palestinian charter that call for the destruction of Israel and for the murder of its entire population. They have not done so. A document that calls for genocide, they cannot repeal. They promised to do so in 1993. They did not do it. When Israel gave up Hebron, withdrew her troops from Hebron last year, the promise was that they would repeal that charter within 2 weeks. That is a year ago and they have not done so. There cannot be an agreement, there cannot be a peace process if Arafat and Company continue to wink at terrorism and do not bring everything to bear, all their forces to bear to stop it. We know that Arafat talks out of both sides of his mouth and uses violence and the threat of violence as a negotiating weapon. As the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] said before, when the stone- throwing mobs and the mobs that were shooting at Israeli soldiers last year with slingshots and other weapons were suddenly told by Mr. Arafat, ``Stop,'' they stopped. There can be no peace process if Arafat does not finally decide, if he is not persuaded by American pressure, by other pressure, by maybe common sense, that he must stop trying to coddle the terrorists, he cannot do business with them, and if there is going to be a peace, he must crack down and do everything in his power to stop the terrorists. Mr. Speaker, in the United States we have gone a long, long way in turning our eyes; to give him the benefit of the doubt; to say maybe he is not coddling the terrorists; let us continue giving him aid. But I think we have come to the end of that road. We should have come to the end of that road a while ago. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution, and I say to Ms. Albright, the Secretary of State, and the President, the one major purpose of that trip next week to the Middle East must be to convince Mr. Arafat that if the peace process is not going to be broken down, war resumed, and everyone blaming him, he must crack down on the terrorists. He must be seen doing it, and there must be confidence that there is someone there worth negotiating with and not simply a snake in the grass. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] before he leaves, that I want to express my appreciation for the gentleman's efforts in bringing this to the floor. It is my hope that this resolution will help lead from the crossroads where we are now, whether we will go down the road to war in the Middle East or to peace, that this resolution will be a milestone, hopefully, on the road to peace. Mr. Speaker, I urge unanimous adoption of the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to first acknowledge the great assistance and aid in drafting this resolution of the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], who cannot be here at the moment, without whose assistance and work this would not have been drafted. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the brutal and cowardly terrorist bombing in a shopping area crowded with women and children and tourists in Jerusalem this morning. At least 6 people have been killed and another 138 people wounded. The United States and the world must be clear and unwavering that murder will never bring peace, and that as long as Mr. Arafat continues to embrace terrorists, as he did only last week, he cannot be a credible peace partner. He cannot talk peace and give a green light to terrorism. The Secretary of State is planning to visit the Middle East. The United States can be a force for peace in the region, but not if we overlook these acts of terrorism. Our Government must send a clear and unmistakable message to the PLO that they cannot continue along their current path and expect this Nation to look the other way. Most of all, we must stand with Israel in support of her efforts to stop these vicious acts of terrorism. In supporting a safe and secure Israel, we will advance the cause of peace, for it is only when Israel's neighbors know that the United States stands unwaveringly behind Israel's right to security will they be willing to consider peaceful coexistence. It is the right of every nation to provide security for its people. We exercised that right in condemning Timothy McVeigh, and we should support Israel's efforts to do the same.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I strongly support international family planning because it will improve women's health, reduce poverty, and protect our global environment. Our family planning programs save lives, and they should be continued without unnecessary restrictions. The only reason why we are even considering the Smith amendment again this year, even though it is already included in the State Department authorization bill, is because the proponents of this amendment are scared their unpopular provision may never be enacted. Apparently, they are confident that, despite support in the House, their view is in fact an extreme position which is not supported by the Senate, by the President, or by the American people. Why? Because the American people understand that family planning is necessary, successful, and addresses a critical need. According to the World Health Organization, nearly 600,000 women die each year of causes related to pregnancy and childbirth. When couples cannot control the number and timing of births, maternal and infant mortality increases. It is estimated that one in five infant deaths could be averted by birth spacing alone. Our family planning efforts directly address these problems, and as David Broder commented in the Washington Post ``the success of the program is undeniable.'' For example, studies show that our efforts, as part of an international strategy, have prevented more than 500 million unintended pregnancies. I am shocked that proponents of the Smith amendment claim that our family planning program actually increase the number of abortions, when, in fact, the exact opposite is true. The Smith amendment would severely limit our efforts and lead to a dramatic increase in the number of abortions worldwide. When the so- called Mexico City restrictions were in place during the Reagan and Bush administrations, U.S. funding for the International Planned Parenthood Federation was suspended. This organization currently supports family planning in over 150 countries and helps serve at least 10 million couples annually in developing countries. The Smith amendment may prevent the U.S. Government from funding this organization and helping so many people. That would be a terrible mistake. This amendment is pernicious, unnecessary, and harmful. If enacted, it would severely limit family planning efforts and simply result in more unwanted pregnancies, more fatalities among women, and more abortions. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Smith amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Father Marcos Zamora and his many accomplishments upon the occasion of his departure from St. Paul the Apostle Church. Since his ordination in 1990, Father Zamora has been serving his congregants as their priest, mentor, and friend. His sensitivity and concern for all people has been an inspiration to all and an example that is truly worthy of emulation. It is heartening to find an individual as fully committed to the service of others as Father Zamora. This commitment has helped to bring together different ethnic groups, those of different ages and backgrounds in the membership of St. Paul's Church. His vocal and passionate stance on many social issues has also helped to increase awareness within his community and to foster understanding. Father Zamora has sponsored workshops on issues such as domestic violence and teenage pregnancy as a means of helping his community through education, individual empowerment, and communication. Mr. Speaker, as Father Zamora prepares to assume a new position at the Good Shepherd Church, also in New York City, I congratulate him on his successes and extend to him the utmost thanks from those whom he has touched. I speak for everyone who knows Father Zamora when I wish him well in his future pursuits.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, there can be no peace in the Middle East unless both sides show through both words and deeds that they are sincere in their quest for peace. Israel has shown that sincerity. The Palestinian Authority has not. They sentence Palestinians to death for doing business with Jews. They turn a blind eye or give a green light to acts of terrorism. They think they have a right to play the violence card whenever negotiations are not proceeding to their liking. That is not the path to peace. It is the path of Munich and Ma'alot. We should not stand for it, and I support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Saxton amendment which will cut off direct funds for the Palestinian Authority for 90 days until the PA begins meeting its obligations under the Oslo Peace Accords. Let there be no question in anyone's mind, the purpose of this amendment is to advance the cause of peace. But, there can be no peace in the Middle East unless both sides show through both words and deeds that they are sincere in this quest for peace. Israel has more than shown her sincerity and commitment to peace. Unfortunately, the leaders of the Palestinian Authority have yet to truly commit to peace. They sentence Palestinians to death for doing business with Jews. They turn a blind eye, or even give a green light, to acts of vicious terrorism. They think they have a right to play the violence card whenever the negotiations aren't proceeding to their liking. Well that's not the path of peace. It's the path of Munich and Ma'alot, and we shouldn't stand for it. Just yesterday, the 25th of Tammuz, another bomb went off in Jerusalem's Mahaneh Yehuda market, killing 13 innocent civilians and wounding 168. If the PLO is serious about peace, let them demonstrate their sincerity. Peace means cracking down on the murderers in their midst. Peace means an end to stirring up hatred against their Jewish neighbors with blood libels. Peace means a halt to death sentences against Palestinians who do business with Jews. Mr. Chairman, I share the heartfelt yearning of the Israeli people for a lasting peace in the Middle East. But the Israelis can't make peace alone. The PLO must join in, or there will be no peace. We should send Arafat a message. We should vote resoundingly for the Saxton amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I would advise the gentleman it is $420 million for the R&D, not procurement.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, a number of arguments are made against this amendment. The argument is made by the gentleman from California, who we all respect, is that we have to have air superiority, which we all agree with, and that if we do not have the F-22, we will not have air superiority, and that American fighters in some future war, therefore, will, God forbid, die from lack of the superiority in the technical equipment. The argument ignores two facts. First, we heard the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] refer to the Rand Commission reports. The Rand Commission says the air fleets of potential adversaries are small and aging. They are not coming up with new technology fighters. We do not see the Russians doing the research and spending the money to produce the next generation of fighters. The Chinese Air Force is going to be retired and not replaced because they are not doing it either. So with whom are we competing for this great new technology? The French, our allies? The Defense Department says they see few high performance aircraft any time soon anywhere else in the world, other than perhaps in France, our allies. Second, we are not opposing the F-22. We are saying stretch out the time before the procurement, do not reduce the procurement time, stretch out the time before the procurement so that there is not a 7- year overlap with the F-15. We will have the aircraft when we need it. But we do not need three separate tactical aircraft programs at the same time. Finally, let me say, again the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] alluded to this, in this 5-year budget agreement that everyone is talking about today, we have Defense Department caps for each year. We are not going to be able to maintain them if we keep buying every weapon on system, if we need more B-2's, if we need three new tactical aircraft systems. So what are we doing? We are penny pinching in operations and training and personnel, when we ought to be spending more money, instead of procuring large numbers of new weapons systems which we cannot possibly afford in the future and which we do not need. Some of them we need. But we have to make choices. Governing is about making choices. This amendment is about making a choice, about reducing the cost overruns in this program, and hopefully giving us time to reconsider whether we need three tactical aircraft programs as a follow-on to the F-15, which, last time I looked, was one aircraft. So I urge the adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment to reduce the appropriation for the F-22 fighter plane program in an effort to demonstrate our concern over the continued cost growth for this program. This year the Air Force is requesting $2 billion for research and development of the F-22. Last year the Air Force estimated that the 1998 cost would be $1.65 billion, the amount set by my amendment. This amendment is a modest reduction in funding, not a cancellation of the costly F-22 program. Many Members of Congress have expressed support for the F-22 program. I for one oppose it. But if we are going to spend tens of billions of dollars on it, if we are going to spend $27 billion on it, we had better make sure the money is properly spent. Senator Coats of Indiana has recognized this and championed a similar amendment to this in the Senate defense authorization bill. This amendment therefore should enjoy at least some bipartisan support in both Houses. The F-22 is one of three different types of tactical aircraft being developed for future deployment. The estimated total program cost of the three tactical air programs in the President's budget, the F-22, the F/A-18E/F and the Joint Strike Fighter will be well over $350 billion. The Committee on National Security reports that, quote: ``the long- term costs associated with DOD's modernization plan are staggering.'' At a time of fiscal restraint, developing three planes concurrently, three tactical airplanes at the same time seems duplicative and wasteful. While we are asking taxpayers to make sacrifices, we must be vigilant in our duty to guard against unnecessary spending. These dollars could be used to greater benefit. We heard some of the better uses to which they could be put in the debate on the previous amendment. The F-22 program has been plagued by cost overruns and poor project management. Both the Air Force and the cost analysis and improvement group in DOD estimated increased cost for F-22 production above and beyond what was previously authorized. In testimony prior to the National Defense Act for Fiscal Year 1997, the Air Force informed the Senate Committee on Armed Services restructuring the program had been costly in the past and had resulted in future cost escalations. This program is a poster child for Defense Department waste. We cannot allow these costs to keep creeping upward unchecked. This year's request for a funding increase is based in part on the cancellation of four preproduction vehicles, foregoing production of 54 operational aircraft and transferring those funds into the engineering and manufacturing development account. So this transfer of funds means the number of planes produced will be decreased while the costs will continue to increase. The Air Force therefore appears to be asking to do less with more rather than the opposite of what we usually hear that we ought to require government departments to do. According to the GAO, the F-15E, which the F-22 is designed to replace, will continue to be the premier tactical aircraft in the world at least until 2010. Events in the Persian Gulf suggest that current tactical aircraft are more than able to counter any likely threat to United States forces. The U.S. may need one new fighter program for the years after 2010 but not three at the same time. We must reduce this program now and make it very clear that defense contractors will not be rewarded for high costs. It is time we looked at our defense programs with a little more scrutiny. We must not simply rubber stamp a bloated defense budget that includes billions of dollars in excessive funding simply because we fundamentally believe, as we all do, in providing for a strong defense. We must have the moral strength to reduce funding for defense projects even if they are built in Marietta, GA, and other reasons represented by powerful Members of the House. To ignore these cost overruns and do nothing would be a gross disservice to the American people. To increase funding under such circumstances for an expensive program with a poor record of financial restraint would be an extreme case of protecting special interests at the expense of hard- working taxpayers. It is a disservice to the American people that year after year we refuse to open the size and scope of our defense budget. I urge my colleagues to join me in fighting to keep costs under control even if those costs appear in a defense bill. The Defense Department should not be immune from our normal cost-paring efforts. Again, this amendment will simply reduce the R&D for this development of this fighter plane to the amount that the Air Force requested a year ago that they would request for this year. Again, in the situation in which we develop three tactical aircraft at the same time, I think this is a very modest request, a very modest amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Twenty-three years of an armed occupation of Cyprus is too long. This should have been ended long ago. This resolution is reaffirmation that the status quo in Cyprus is unacceptable, that it is detrimental to the security interests of the United States, and it emphasizes that we can only get a true and just and lasting peace and stability in Cyprus through a process of demilitarization. In view of the recent beginning of talks between Turkey and Greece, and in view of the administration's initiative, this is a good time to reemphasize these points and to encourage the President to launch the kind of initiative that has met with some success in other parts of the Middle East. So I commend the sponsor of this resolution and I urge its strong support. And, Mr. Speaker, I wish to join as a sponsor of this resolution also.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1661, the Trademark Law Treaty Implementation Act, a measure recently passed out of the House Judiciary Committee with unanimous support. This act, a long awaited implementation of a treaty entered into previously, is supported without objection. The import of this measure is that it would put the United States squarely behind the important goal of international uniformity of trademark registration requirements, a goal which, when achieved, will redound to the overwhelming benefit of Americans, who are by far lead producers of trademarks in the world. I and the other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee strongly support this measure. I commend Chairman Coble, ranking member Barney Frank, and the other members and staff of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee for moving this legislation forward, and I urge its adoption today under suspension of the rules.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, these decisions ought to be made on the basis of the health and scientific evidence. That is why the Clean Air Act asks the EPA to update this data every 5 years. They have done that. We should not interpose a political judgment. If we need help for governments, local governments, for industries to attain these clean air standards, let us legislate that. Let us appropriate money if necessary. But let the science be the science. Let the health of our citizens be paramount. Let us protect our people.

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. He is entirely right. Any doctor will tell us that, especially with the ozone and the small particulate matter these regulations will for the first time deal with. The gentlemen say that these new regulations will put 400 counties into noncompliance. That may be so. But that does not tell us that that is a terrible thing. That is a good thing. It means that we will start bringing up the breathability of the air in those 400 counties so people do not die or suffer health effects from breathing bad air in those 400 counties. My own county of New York County is in noncompliance with current regulations. I wish the enforcement of EPA were stronger so we could get our city and State governments to take stronger action that some of us have been fighting for for years. So the fact that lots of areas will not be in compliance says we have now discovered that they are not in compliance, it is a fact of physics, it is a fact of health, it is not a thing to be deplored, and that we will now start curing that problem. Again, there is no economic problem. We are told always that there is an economic problem. History does not bear that out. The science is good science. Those who oppose this science, we hear every time when we come to this, the industry says it is bad science. It is like the tobacco companies saying that the Surgeon General and EPA had bad science. I trust the professionals and EPA to make those decisions more than I trust people in industry with a vested interest, or for that matter, people in this House who have political and other interests.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to this discussion of these clean air standards promulgated by EPA with some interest. I am very glad that EPA has promulgated these standards. There has been increasing scientific evidence for a long time, and in particular with respect to the very small particulate matter which previously was thought not to have deleterious impacts on health and now we know has the most severe impact on health. I think it noteworthy that it was the scientific people in EPA who said to promulgate these standards. Where did the questioning come from? Not from the scientific people, the health people, but from people in the Office of Management and Budget, from people concerned with budgets and economics. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman]. History shows us that it is a false choice to say the environment or jobs. We have had much more stringent environmental regulations than previously and we have had the greatest boom in recent history. What history shows us is that far from being an economic detriment, stronger compliance with clean air standards, stronger clean air standards, leads to the creation of jobs in attaining the clean air standards. Yes, companies have to spend money. Local governments have to spend money in attaining clean air, higher clean air standards, in cleaning up emissions. But what do they spend money on? They spend money on more equipment, on scrubbers, which someone must manufacture. They spend money. They spend money on technology or on different means of waste disposal, all of which creates jobs. So I do not think that there is a conflict here. But even if there were a conflict, how do you say to a mother of a child dying from asthma, or a middle-aged person in severe respiratory distress, ``That is too bad, it would have cost an extra penny cigarette tax or an extra 2 cents gasoline tax to save your life and the lives of several thousand people like you''? I do not see how we make that equation. I would not want to be in the position of having to explain that to people in health difficulties.

Mr. NADLER

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. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment to abolish the National Endowment for the Humanities. This House seems intent on doing an interesting day's work. First let us destroy our support for the arts, that is in the morning; and in the afternoon let us destroy the humanities. That is a good day's work. The humanities are critical to any free and democratic society. The study of history, the study of philosophy, literature, religion, how are people supposed to make intelligent decisions and govern ourselves if we do not support the study of history and philosophy and literature and religion? The purpose of the National Endowment for the Humanities is to promote this, to promote research in education and the preservation of knowledge, to promote the preservation of our cultural heritage. This House is willing to spend, we are this year appropriating somewhere in the neighborhood of $270 billion to the Department of Defense for our physical defense. One can think, as I do, that that is a little too much, but no one will quibble that we should spend a lot of money for our physical defense. But the NEH, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the National Endowment for the Arts, that is money spent for our cultural and civil defense, for our cultural heritage, so that we have a country that is worth in every sense defending. The NEH funds professional development for teachers to preserve our heritage for the next generation. Fifty thousand teachers have benefited from its summer seminars, and they have reached in turn 7\1/ 2\ million students. NEH grants are being used to fund multimedia database programs on the Supreme Court, the Civil War and the philosophies and civilizations of ancient Greece and Rome, from which we learn so much. The endowment provides national leadership for efforts to digitize and make more accessible such important texts and documents as the Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient Egyptian papyrus fragments and the works of Shakespeare. The endowment has preserved 750,000 brittle books and 55 million pages of American newspapers. It is crucial to our efforts to preserve the writings and ideas of American culture. In fact, the NEH is crucial to efforts to preserve the writings of American Presidents, including those of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Dwight Eisenhower. I hear the gentleman from California saying we do not need the NEH to do this; let people spend their own money to do it. Who would preserve our cultural heritage? Who would spend the money to physically treat books, physically and chemically treat books so that their pages do not fall apart with age, books that are 50, 100, and 200 years old? The private sector will not do it. Government has to do it because it is essential that it be done to preserve our heritage. But the private sector will not do that. Do we want to eliminate funding for a program whose primary purpose is to preserve American history and culture? We have cut funding for this substantially. Two years ago the funding was $172 million, about .01 percent of the budget. The current fiscal year it is being slashed to $110 million, but that is not enough. They argue it must be eliminated. To argue that this is too large an investment to preserve our cultural heritage is absurd. As was mentioned before, we voted for nine B-2 bombers in the current budget that the Pentagon says it does not need to defend us. One B-2 bomber, the cost of it, could fund the NEH for a dozen years. The NEA has made mistakes on grants, the NEH has made mistakes on grants. Sure. But that is the real motive for eliminating them. But that makes about as much sense as saying that people have cheated on Medicare, some insurance companies have overbilled the Government, some doctors have overbilled the Government, so let us eliminate Medicare. No, let us have better protections. The decisions that we make on spending are reflective of what kind of a country it is we want. Do we want a Nation that values learning, that rewards curiosity, that devotes resources to learning about the past so that we know how to seek a better future? If that is the kind of Nation we want, it is crucial we continue our commitment to the National Endowment for the Humanities. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues not to compound the damage we did this morning on the NEA. Reject this amendment to eliminate the NEH. Let us not be totally shameful today.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is nothing but a smokescreen to hide the actions taken by the House leadership to prevent the vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] to restore funding to the NEA. This amendment was cooked up in the middle of the night. It has not been considered by any committee nor had the benefit of any public hearing. It would effectively waste the $80 million it appropriates with virtually no benefit to the arts. For 30 years, Mr. Chairman, the NEA has brought art and culture to those who would not otherwise have access do it. Before the NEA there were 58 orchestras in the country. Today there are more than 1,000. Before the NEA there were 37 professional dance companies. Now there are 300. Before the NEA, only 1 million people went to the theater in this country every year. Today more than 55 million do. Without the NEA, we will revert to the old situation where the arts were not accessible to most people in this country. But this amendment eliminates the NEA. It would instead distribute $600 or $1,000 to every school district. $600 for an entire school district? What use could they make of that? The amendment is so restrictive, there is no guarantee, no assurance it would continue our support for symphonies, operas, concerts in the park, local Shakespeare festivals and touring dance and theater groups that benefit entire communities, not only schoolchildren. Even the State arts agencies that would directly receive 30 percent of the block grants strongly oppose the amendment. The amendment does not recognize the purpose of a national arts agency, and therefore it tends to set up a distribution system that sounds fair but in reality is completely unworkable. The amendment will eliminate funding for the traveling theater and dance groups that visit small towns and communities all across the Nation, because if States control these funds they will have no incentive to support theater or dance groups that travel to other States outside their borders. And the amendment will distribute an equal portion of Federal money to every region. But we all know this makes no sense. Mr. Chairman, should New York City get the same amount of money for wheat subsidies as towns in Kansas and Iowa, even though we grow no wheat in New York City? Of course not. Some regions have more wheat farmers and others have more artists, and Federal funds should be distributed accordingly. In the end, wheat subsidies help consumers nationwide, and NEA grants bring excellent art produced by the country's finest artists to people all over the country. I hope it is very clear that the amendment is a fraud, designed only to create a political fig leaf for those whose constituents will not appreciate their votes yesterday to kill the NEA. Do not be deceived. Vote against this amendment, and wait for the Senate and the President to rescue the arts in this country from the folly of this House.