Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to object in the strongest possible terms to this rule. The action of the House leadership to deny a vote on the floor of the House on whether to retain or to abolish the National Endowment for the Arts is unconscionable and is an act of cowardice. It is an insult to democracy and a great disservice to the American public. The rule specifically targets the NEA for extinction. It waives points of order against every other amendment but one. Why? Because they are not confident they have the votes to defeat the NEA in a fair and open vote. The rule is a cynical attempt to prevent the elected representatives of the American people from even voting for or against abolishing a major Government agency. Instead, the rule permits the Ehlers amendment, which is nothing but a snare and a delusion. That amendment would abolish the NEA and instead distribute $600, on average, to every school district for the arts, $600 to all school districts. To what use could they put that? What is really at stake is the availability of art to the American people across the country. 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, there were 1 million people who attended the theater each year. Today more than 55 million attend. Do we want to go back to that era, when art was available only in large cities, and only to those who could afford large sums of money? That is what is at stake. Vote against this rule. Do not be deluded.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was unavoidably out of the Chamber when a couple of rollcall votes were taken. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 235, ``no'' on rollcall 236 and ``no'' on rollcall 237.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, earlier today I was unavoidably out of the Chamber when three rollcalls occurred, and I want to ask that it would be reflected in the Record that had I been present I would have voted in the affirmative. I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 225, and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 226, and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 227. Personal Explanation

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Harman amendment which would reverse the shameful policy of forbidding women in our armed services from using their own money to pay for an abortion in a safe U.S. medical facility abroad. It is disgraceful that we require women who are serving their country to risk their health and lives to exercise their constitutional right to choose an abortion. Why should not women in the Armed Forces enjoy the same fundamental rights that all other women in the United States enjoy? This bill would deny our Nation's service women stationed abroad a right they are absoltely entitled to and can exercise when in the United States, but if they are stationed abroad, they are forced to wait until they can return to the United States for an abortion or to go what in many countries are substandard and unsafe foreign medical facilities. Whatever anyone in this Chamber may think about abortion, it is a constitutionally protected right of every American woman. Our service women are prepared to risk their lives to defend our values and to protect our freedoms. We should not require them to risk their lives to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and expunge the shame from our statute books.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this restrictive rule. The bill authorizes $3.7 billion more on procurement alone than the administration requests. We should not spend billions of dollars that the American people do not have to buy weapons we do not have to fight enemies that do not exist. Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment that would have reduced the spending for the F-22 fighter plane to the level approved by the Senate Committee on Armed Services. We should not be funding the development of three competing fighter planes for the same mission, but the rule does not permit my amendment even to be discussed on the floor of the House. Is it perhaps because the contractor, the prime contractor is based in Marietta, GA? It is a disservice to the American people that this amendment and scores of others that would have allowed for the discussion of the size and scope of this budget, were barred from the floor of the House. If we had a proper rule, we could discuss cost overruns, its program delays, its fuel leaks, its prototypes that crash and burn, brought to you by the hard-earned dollars of the American taxpayer, and we could vote on that funding. But the rule will not permit that. A rule that prevents such debate and prevents the House from voting on whether to waste billions of dollars on three separate duplicative programs should not be approved. I urge my colleagues to defeat it.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in strong support of this amendment, and I would like to join my colleagues in congratulating the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel], and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch] for introducing it. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would express the sense of Congress to condemn the Palestinian Authority for its policy and practice of executing Palestinians who sell land to Jews. This policy we have heard described today is an obnoxious policy and an illegal policy, a racist policy; obviously, it is all those. We have also heard that Chairman Arafat on occasion, I spoke to one Member who told me that Chairman Arafat looked him in the eye and said, ``We do not condone this, we condemn this.'' Chairman Arafat has a long history of condoning things in one sphere, to one audience, and condemning them to another, or promoting them to one audience and denying them to another. Mr. Chairman, Yasser Arafat said the following. He said: ``We are taking forceful steps against those who do this. Recently, a decision was passed to punish anyone who sells land, property or homes. We are keeping track of land dealers and punishing them.'' This was an interview with the Lebanese newspaper Al-Hawadath on May 16, 3 weeks ago. ``We are keeping track of land dealers and punishing them.'' Well, what does punish mean? Mr. Arafat's appointee as justice minister, Freih Abu Middein said last week, on June 4: ``The land dealers must learn a lesson.'' This is the Palestinian Authority justice commissioner. ``We have a list of names. The people included on the list and others shall be put on trial. The list includes more than 310 names.'' Interviewed with Al-Ayyam. They will be put on trial. And then he says, a day later in the Washington Post, the same justice minister, ``Since we are talking about committing suicide, I advise the land dealers to commit suicide instead of getting killed and having their bodies thrown here and there.'' So that is what a trial means to the Palestinian Authority justice minister. When Chairman Arafat says, ``We will punish them,'' obviously this is what they mean. Extrajudicial punishment, murder of people for ex post facto sins, the sins being committed before the announcement that it was a terrible thing to do, and this terrible thing being sale of land to Jews. We understand that sale of land to Jews by Arabs, or vice versa, for that matter, is a sensitive matter and a topic for discussion, but not a topic for a cause for murder. Mr. Chairman, we have to understand, when we look at this, in what context this happens. We keep talking about the peace process, but rarely do we hear it mentioned, rarely are we reminded of how asymmetrical the peace process is. What is this basic peace process that we keep talking about? The basic idea of the Oslo accord, the basic idea of the Oslo accord is that Israel is to surrender something tangible, control over land, in return for something intangible, promises of security; that the Arabs, the Palestinians, are to promise that they have given up their hope of destroying Israel and murdering its entire population and driving it into the sea, which of course has been the official position of the Palestinians, of the PLO, for decades. They are supposed to promise ``We have given that up.'' They have said they have. They are supposed to repeal the charter which calls for abolishing Israel and eliminating all its population. They are supposed to show by deed that they are against terror, against armed attack against Israelis, and not only condemn it but do everything they can to capture terrorists, to prevent terrorism, to give information to the Israelis, to cooperate in stopping this, in return for which they are to be given control over land, for peace. It is a lot to ask of someone to give something tangible, land, control, control from which they can exercise measures to enhance their own safety and security, in return for something intangible, promises, words and pieces of paper. But at least if that peace process is going to work, the whole idea, we should spend a few years before we got to the final status negotiations and give the Palestinians an opportunity to show that they meant it, that they would in fact repeal the charter eliminating, promising to eliminate Israel, that they would stop terrorism. I regret to say they have not been showing this and this policy of murdering Palestinians who sell land to Jews is one further indication of basic untrustworthiness. If this is not reversed very quickly, we will have to conclude that the peace process may not be won, may not go in the direction it should go. And so, Mr. Chairman, I, therefore, support this amendment, and I hope it may be somewhat effective in causing the Palestinian Authority to rethink its course and to decide finally that if peace is to be achieved, a little honesty and sincerity on the part of the Palestinians is necessary.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the McKinney-Rohrabacher amendment to establish an arms sales code of conduct. After more than 30 years of the cold war with record high peacetime defense budgets and a tremendous amount of global arms exports, the United States has left the world armed to the teeth with millions of tons of bombs, jets, submarines, and artillery. The world is awash in weapons. These excessive exports have fueled armed conflicts throughout the world, destabilized regions, and have forced governments of developing nations to spend more money on arms and less money on the vital needs of their people. In 1994 alone the United States sold or gave $13 billion of weapons to almost 100 countries, many of which, according to the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights, are run by abusive or non-democratic regimes. In Panama, Iraq, Somalia, and Haiti, United States Forces were threatened by troops assisted by United States training, weapons, or military technology. We must put an end to this deadly cycle, and this amendment would do just that by giving Congress a real role in shaping U.S. arms export policy. The bill does not impose an inflexible ban, but instead provides for a responsible review policy, whereby Congress must carefully consider arms sales to abusive regimes. If congress agrees with the President that it is in our national interest to continue to sell weapons to a particular country, then sales would be permitted. This is not a ban on all arms exports; it is a reasonable step that we can take now to begin to curb weapons sales to dangerous regimes. As the leading arms exporter, the United States has the opportunity and the responsibility to accept certain limitations on the sale of American arms. If we act boldly on this issue, I am confident the world will follow. When the United States led the way by refusing to export anti-personnel landmines, the rest of the world followed and enacted bans of their own. Efforts are already underway to create an international code of conduct on conventional arms transfers, and voting for this amendment will further strengthen those efforts. I want to commend Representatives McKinney and Rohrabacher for offering this amendment and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith amendment. I strongly support international family planning because we know it will improve women's health, it reduces poverty, and it protects our global environment. Some people claim that our family planning efforts increase the number of abortions. This is not true. This amendment is not only harmful, it is unnecessary as well. By law and by practice, U.S. funds cannot be used today to provide abortion services, either in the United States or abroad. AID has implemented procedures that carefully monitor the spending of these funds, and independent audits confirm that not one dollar of U.S. funds is used today to perform abortions. While I personally support a woman's right to choose strongly and I disagree with this policy, it is, nonetheless, the current policy and the current law with or without this amendment. The real problem with this amendment is that it forces family planning clinics that receive U.S. funding abroad not to use their own resources to provide abortion counseling or to perform abortions. Clinics that accept these restrictions will be limited in the services they are able to provide, and many health clinics will not accept such restrictions on the use of their own resources and may be forced to close for lack of funding. These closed clinics will no longer help women receive prenatal care, will no longer prevent more women from dying during childbirth, will no longer prevent unintended pregnancies, and therefore will no longer help reduce the number of abortions. The number of abortions will increase, not decrease, if this amendment were to pass. This amendment is unnecessary, pernicious and harmful. It will simply result in more unwanted pregnancies, more fatalities among women in childbirth, and more abortions. It makes no sense on any grounds, and I strongly urge a yes vote for the Lowey-Greenwood substitute and a no vote on the Smith amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, without any public discussion, a provision was inserted in this brew last night that would fundamentally alter American policy by repealing the Lautenberg amendment that has made it practical for Jews and Evangelical Christians emigrating from the former Soviet Union to receive refugee status in the United States. The Lautenberg amendment recognizes a simple and straightforward fact: that there is still a great deal of religious persecution in the former Soviet Union; that anti-Semitism and religious persecution did not die with the Communist government; and that, if anything, with virulent nationalists and anti-Semites like Vladimir Zhirinovsky active and increasingly popular, the need to provide a safe haven is as great as ever. Finally, even if some in this House are prepared to believe that the Lautenberg amendment is no longer needed, the Jews of the former Soviet Union are not. They are still trying to get out. There are about 40,000 applications on file and the Department of State estimates that two- thirds of them qualify; 2,000 new applications are received every month. The Congressional Budget Office, after five contrary determinations, now says there is a cost to continuing the Lautenberg amendment. This is nonsense. We set a cap on refugee admissions every year. The Lautenberg amendment does not add a single number to that cap. It simply determines refugee admissions within the cap. So it is absurd to suggest there is any cost involved in this amendment. Mr. Speaker, the rule also drops the entire foreign aid budget from the International Relation Committee's bill. This includes aid to Israel. How can we vote to cut aid to Israel from this bill? The Israeli people are living under the gun. They have to face terrorism on their busses, on their streets, and in their schools. Israel is our only democratic ally in the region. What sort of message does this send to Israel's many enemies? That the United States lacks the resolve to stand with our friends? That terrorism wins? Mr. Speaker, this rule is a disgrace. It undercuts our basic values and our policies that have worked for our friends, our country, and our values. Mr. Speaker, I also object to the inability to stage a real debate on NATO expansion, on where we should extend our guarantees and where not. If Hungary, why not Russia? Why not Ukraine? This House ought to debate that, and this rule ought to be defeated.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding performance of New York University's 1997 National Champion women's basketball team. After compiling an incredible record of 29 wins and 1 loss, New York University went on to a heart-stopping, last-minute victory over Wisconsin-Eau Claire in the Division III National Championship game. Led by Head Coach Janice Quinn, the winningest coach in New York University's women's basketball history, and team captains Jen Krolikowski and Marsha Harris, the Violets brought N.Y.U. its first basketball national championship ever. Marsha Harris' last-second layup to seal the Violets' come-from-behind victory also brought the city of New York its first basketball national champion in almost 20 years. The players, coaches, and athletic staff were rewarded for their hard work and dedication with a momentous achievement. The Violets' championship is a great accomplishment for New York University athletics, the university itself, and the entire community. I am proud to have New York University within my district.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this budget resolution. Although Democratic negotiators have succeeded in improving this budget over some previous proposals, I believe it is still bad policy for the Nation. The centerpiece of this budget is that in order to pay for tax cuts, the lion's share of which will go to the very wealthiest of Americans, we will constrain government spending on the things government should and must be doing. This budget calls for a 10-percent real reduction in nondefense discretionary spending. We will be investing less in housing. We have a zero budget for new affordable housing units. Zero. And apparently, according to this, we should have a zero budget for affordable housing units, for new affordable housing units for the next 10 years. We should cut spending in education, infrastructure, health care, Medicare by $115 billion, and on and on, all in the interest of a tax cut, mostly for the very wealthiest people in our country. When President Clinton ran for election in 1992, he said we had to deal with four deficits. He said we had to get the budget deficit under control. And we have gotten it under control, reducing it from almost $300 to $67 billion. He said we have to get the infrastructure investment deficit under control. We are investing in public infrastructure at the rate of one- twelfth of our competitors in Germany and Europe and Japan. And this does not do that. And if we do not solve that problem, we will not have a competitive economy. We have to invest in research and development. We have cut research and development investment in the private and public sector. If we want to have a competitive economy in products we can sell abroad and at home a dozen years from now, we had better deal with that deficit. And we have to invest in human capital so we have an educated work force and so our people are healthy and educated and can hold down decent jobs. But in the name of balancing the budget and giving a tax cut to the wealthiest people in our country, we are abandoning these goals. And we have no assurance that the permanent tax cuts enacted with this proposal will not explode after 2002 or 2008. In 2008 there will be $400 and $500 billion a year in less revenue just at the time that the baby boom is retiring, and we are told we are going to need huge amounts of extra money for Social Security and for Medicare. Sure, the Republicans have assured us this will not happen. But Ronald Reagan assured us that the 1981 tax cut would not lead to the biggest deficits in history and, of course, they did. What this budget really says to America is for the next 10 years we are going to abandon investment in our Nation and in our people and, instead, we will devote our valuable resources to pay for unnecessary tax cuts skewed to the richest in our country. Government, Mr. Chairman, should be guided by policy and not symbolism and shortsightedness. We should not constrain investment in our future. And I hope, I hope, we have the courage, the intelligence and the farsightedness to vote against this resolution.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 136 I was erroneously recorded as voting ``aye.'' I had intended to vote ``nay.'' I would ask that the Record reflect that fact.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, today we have an opportunity to take the first step to undo some of the damage caused by the immigration and welfare reform laws passed in the last Congress. That inhumane legislation was targeted at the most vulnerable in the immigrant community, and it must be reversed. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to delay the date of enactment of the harshest provisions of these laws. The Senate has already voted overwhelmingly in support of this measure, and I am hopeful that the House will do the same. We must prevent the widespread human hardship that threatens our communities due to the passage of the welfare and immigration laws. In the past few months, we have begun to see the often tragic impact of these laws. We have already heard reports of many immigrants being turned out of nursing homes due to the impending cutoff of their disability payments. If this amendment does not become law, we will witness much worse. Mr. Chairman, we are in the midst of a national tragedy in the making. Widespread homelessness, poverty, and loss of life will surely result. Private charities and shelters will be unable to accommodate all those who will be cut off. The impending crisis has also led to incredible anxiety for elderly immigrants who do not know where to turn for help. Riva Feldsher, a Russian immigrant living in Illinois who is nearly blind after suffering a stroke several years ago, recently asked a reporter ``What am I going to do? I am an old person. The only choice I have is to go on the street and die there.'' I have also heard stories of immigrants who have committed suicide due to the fear they feel about these new laws. There is a great deal of fear in our immigrant communities, and we must make every concerted effort to alleviate anxiety and restore benefits. This is critical legislation. The measure that we are seeking to delay with this amendment targets legal immigrants--people who entered this country legally and openly, paid taxes, and contributed to our economy--who are now elderly and disabled and who deserve our support. An extension of this kind is necessary to allow time for the Congress to substantially modify the law in order to protect elderly and disabled immigrants in a more comprehensive manner. While I would prefer to see an immediate and complete restoration of benefits to legal immigrants, I support this temporary measure to maintain benefits while budget negotiations continue. Without this delay, termination notices will begin to go out in July and we will have, at the very least, a short-term loss of benefits which would be a disaster to elderly and disabled immigrants and the communities in which they live. This amendment should alleviate some of the tension and anxiety our elder immigrants feel, and will temporarily breathe life back into the lives of legal immigrants who otherwise would be left without critical life-supporting assistance. We owe it to them to pass this amendment today and to fully restore benefits by the end of September. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Diaz-Balart-Meek amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today I join with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to speak out about an injustice being perpetrated against a group of Irish nationals who have lived in this country as law-abiding citizens, but who our Government is seeking to deport. These men have American families--wives, children, grandchildren-- that would be torn apart by their deportations. they are also part of our communities. They are our neighbors. One of these men in particular, Kevin Crossan, lives in my community in New York. His wife, Joyce, is an American. Kevin was arrested by the British authorities, beaten, tortured, and ultimately convicted in a special political court with no jury. He served 14 years as a political prisoner in Long Kesh Prison. Upon his release he was again harassed, as was Joyce who was herself arrested and detained in Castlereagh for 3 days. She sued the chief of the Royal Ulster Constabulary for unlawful detainment, and the British authorities admitted their guilt through a settlement. If the Crossans are sent back to Northern Ireland, it is fairly certain that they will again face harassment from the authorities. So why is our Government trying so hard to deport Kevin? No other government has demanded that he be turned over. He clearly has a well founded fear of persecution if they are sent back. He has posed no threat to this country in the 6 years he has lived here. His deportation would destroy an American family. Mr. Speaker, I have often taken to the floor of this House to speak out against the cruel and mindless immigration laws we have in this country. the inexplicable heartlessness with which this family is being treated is simply one more example of an immigration system that too often ignores the pleas of those who have come here seeking asylum from government oppression and the opportunity to make a new life. The community I represent hopes that the Crossans will soon win the right to remain here in the United States, free from the fear they left behind in Northern Ireland.

Mr. NADLER

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment to H.R. 2. I would like to thank first of all the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology, the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn], and their staffs for their hard work and cooperation on this amendment. I deeply appreciate the bipartisan goodwill that was demonstrated in the process of bringing this amendment to the floor. In this era of severely limited resources, we must do all we can with what we have to create affordable housing in both the public and private sectors. This amendment will do just that in a little way. This amendment will give the General Services Administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development the option to transfer a parcel of surplus property in my district in New York to a nonprofit agency to provide low- and moderate-income housing. The parameters laid out in the amendment are strict. The nonprofit agency must be experienced in the provision of housing for low-income families or individuals. The property must be used for low- and moderate-income housing for at least 30 years. If it is not, its title will revert back to the United States. The Department of Housing and Urban Development will be allowed to require any additional terms and conditions, such as, for example, evidence of adequate financing, evidence of financial responsibility and so forth, that it deems necessary to protect the interests of the United States and to accomplish the goals of providing low- to moderate-income housing. While this amendment does not mandate the General Services Administration to transfer this property in so many words, it is our intent to strongly encourage GSA to allow for the conversion of this space to affordable housing. Let me make it quite clear that such a transfer is the intent of this amendment. This amendment does not mandate the GSA to transfer the property, only to allow for the unlikely possibility that no proposal meets the strict requirements set forth in the amendment, although we believe that there will be such a proposal. I again thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the degree of collegiality and cooperation they have shown in bringing this amendment to the floor.

Mr. NADLER. If the gentleman would continue to yield, yes, that is correct.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, it is one piece of property, first of all. This only applies to one piece of property, by its terms. A particular address is set in the bill. This particular piece of property has already been declared not usable for McKinney Act purposes. So that is not a question. It is our belief that this will be transferred within a period of months, hopefully, to the agency for low income cooperative housing, and that it will proceed to develop it for such purposes.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I appreciate the commitment of the gentleman and willingness or eagerness to join in going to the Committee on Appropriations to urge a specific amount. I do think this bill should contain a specific amount. I would be willing to withdraw this amendment if we have the agreement that we will try to work out by Tuesday a specific amount which we would then put into the bill and, if we do not reach that, we can have at least a voice vote on this amendment. But I do think we should have a specific amount, not simply in mind with which to go to the Committee on Appropriations but in the bill.

Mr. NADLER. If the gentleman will yield further, I understand what the gentleman means. I would be willing on that basis to withdraw the amendment until Tuesday so we could if we reach an agreement, an agreed amount, put it in and do that then. I do not think I could withdraw the amendment without that.

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

Mr. NADLER. If the gentleman will yield further, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I look forward to working with him whatever happens to this amendment at this point.