Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, for 50 years, Americans for Democratic Action has been a proud defender of liberal values in America, so it is with great pleasure that I rise to praise this fine organization. As a former board member of ADA and a great admirer of its president, Jack Sheinkman, I know well the long history and tremendous accomplishments of ADA. Founded with the help of Eleanor Roosevelt, ADA, has for decades, actively championed liberal policies that work. ADA has been a powerful force for good in Washington--fighting to increase the minimum wage, protect workers, and support valuable programs like Medicare and Medicaid. ADA has led the difficult fight on behalf of this needy; fighting to ensure that the Federal budget does not neglect those who are often overlooked or blatantly ignored. From the beginning, ADA has been among the Nation's leaders in the fight for civil rights and racial justice. ADA members successfully worked to integrate strong civil rights protections into the 1948 Democratic platform. Working in the South in the 1950's and 1960's, ADA challenged the President and others to more closely live up to the ideals of this great Nation, to respect the rights of all people, and to tear down the segregationist laws that continued to oppress millions of Americans. ADA has also led the way in promoting a humanitarian foreign policy. From opposing the Vietnam war to pursuing an end to apartheid in South Africa, ADA has been willing to tackle difficult issues and mobilize public opinion in extraordinary ways. ADA has fought long and hard for nuclear arms control and continues to advocate for lower levels of military spending and more restrictions on international arms sales. ADA has often advocated ideas that were once seen as radical. From promoting civil rights, to opposing the Vietnam war, to ending segregation, ADA has often been the first to voice opinions that many, at the time, considered radical, but with hard work and active citizen education, move to become the prevailing wisdom. ADA's voice in Washington often shines like a beacon of light that cuts through of fog of misinformation that fills the air on Capitol Hill. Through bold leadership and the strength that comes from speaking the truth, ADA has achieved enormous victories and improved the lives of people everywhere. To promote active citizen involvement in the fight for equality, justice, and peace--this is the mission that ADA has chosen, and I, for one, believe that they have succeeded tremendously in their efforts. Now, more than ever, we see the need for grassroots activists empowered by ADA to continue to let their Representatives know what's important to them: protecting working families; helping the needy; and fighting injustice. I welcome their support in the upcoming battles of the 105th Congress, and I know that the American people appreciate their efforts to help create a more perfect Union.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, as the sponsor of this bill, I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Gilchrest and the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Traficant, the ranking member, as well as Chairman Shuster and ranking member Jim Oberstar for their support of this legislation which names the new Federal courthouse in New York City after our late colleague, Ted Weiss. Mr. Speaker, I knew Ted Weiss for almost 30 years. I knew him to be a compassionate, dedicated, hardworking, and loving man. Ted was born in Hungary in September 1927. At the age of 10, he and his family fled the Nazi tyranny and left for the United States on the last passenger ship out of Hamburg, Germany, before World War II, arriving here in March 1938. Ted went on to earn his undergraduate and law degrees, both in 4\1/2\ years, at Syracuse University. After serving in the United States Army, he served as an assistant district attorney in Manhattan for 4 years. In 1961, Ted was elected to the New York City Council, where he was instrumental in supporting gun control legislation, the first environmental laws in New York City, and the first noise control laws in New York City. He was known as the conscience of the city council. He began there a lifetime of public service that was marked by compassion and principle. As a constituent and a friend of Ted's, I knew firsthand how tirelessly he worked to bring issues important to the people whom he served to the forefront of public debate. 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 discussion nationwide and worldwide. He was a strong supporter of human rights throughout the world and 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 courthouse after him. I believe this suits the man who fought so hard to create a more just world. By adopting this legislation, this House will honor the memory of a friend and colleague who was respected by all who knew him, who was loved by many of us, and who brought prestige and honor to this institution. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. I again thank the chairman, the ranking members and the other Members of this body for supporting it.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania very much. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

Mr. NADLER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, could I ask is there any language in this bill regarding Governors Island?

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, I was expecting to support this conference report. The gentleman from Tennessee, Chairman Duncan, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Shuster, the gentleman from Minnesota, Ranking Member Oberstar, and the gentleman from Illinois, Ranking Member Lipinski, and the other members of the committee as well as the staff put in countless hours crafting a bill that was bipartisan in nature and would easily have passed this House. That is why I am so disappointed. We now find ourselves in a heated debate over one provision in this bill, a provision that is beyond the scope of the conference report. The majority has inserted language to reinstate the language ``express carrier'' as a recognized term in the Railway Labor Act, a term that was deleted by the majority in the ICC Termination Act just a few months ago. It was not done by accident, it was not an oversight on the part of some clerk. It was deliberate and reasonable because, according to the ICC and its successor, the Surface Transportation Board, there are no companies left that fall into that classification. But we know the real reason why this is being done. With this language, the Federal Express Corporation, a large source of campaign contributions for lots of people, will be able to apply to be reclassified as a so-called express carrier. If the Federal Express were successful, it would be able to deny to its truck drivers the protections afforded by the National Labor Relations Act of their right to organize a labor union, should they wish to do so. Why has Federal Express suddenly found the need to be classified as an express carrier? The classification has been around for more than 20 years. What has changed? Why is it suddenly so important? It is obvious: to keep out the union. This is a union-busting provision, pure and simple. If, as was stated, this is simply a technical correction being made, why was it not done at the committee level? Why was it not done at the House? Why was it not done at the Senate? Why this last minute secret addition in the conference report? Why does the Committee on Rules have to waive the point of order to make this nonconferenceable provision admissible into the conference report? It is terrible that we are now perhaps jeopardizing billions of dollars in airport construction funds in order to carry out some secret promise to one company. If this is a reasonable request, let us have hearings, let us have some debate about this. This is the wrong time to be doing this. It is the wrong bill to be doing this in. I urge a no vote on this conference report as long as it contains this nefarious ``FEDEX'' amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I have occasion to rise and commend the Federal Reserve Board, but the decision yesterday to hold the line on interest rates certainly merits commendation. We all know the Federal Reserve Board is allergic to good economic news. If too many Americans find jobs, the Fed ominously warns of runaway inflation when there is no evidence of inflation, and cranks up interest rates to slow the economy down. The Fed has seemed determined to maintain an unemployment rate, to guarantee an unemployment rate of at least 5.6 percent or more. To keep this in perspective, every percentage point of unemployment represents 1.3 million Americans. That should be a cause for concern to anyone in this Chamber who has been conscientiously cutting the deficit or scrapping the Nation's social safety net in the belief that their efforts will lower interest rates and put people to work. So my congratulations to the Federal Reserve for enduring the economic good news with restraint. Hopefully this is a sign that in the future we may be able to begin to count on the Fed to help, not hinder, the effort to improve the lives of all Americans. And as a consequence of this, Mr. Speaker, I again ask and I join my colleagues in asking that the Ethics Committee stop covering up and release the Gingrich report.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this bill, which contains some valid provisions to enforce our immigration laws, has been poisoned with unconscionable provisions that violate fundamental American values. The bill would deny treatment to people with AIDS but not to people with syphilis. It would promote discrimination in employment by removing provisions of Federal law, of present law, designed to prevent that. The bill would not permit an American citizen, denied a job because the Federal Government made a computer mistake, from recovering damages. This is outrageous and will result in Americans being denied jobs and having no recourse. The agreement will undermine American family values by curtailing the ability of American citizens to sponsor the entry of family members into the community. The bill exempts the Immigration and Naturalization Service from our environmental laws, even though none of these laws have ever hindered the enforcement of immigration laws. The bill will send genuine refugees back to their oppressors without having their claims properly considered. If a person arrives at the border without proper documents, the officer at the border can send that person back without a hearing. Guess who cannot get proper papers? Refugees. A refugee cannot go to the Gestapo and KGB and say: I am trying to escape your oppression, please give me the proper papers so I can go to America. The bill eliminates judicial review for most INS actions. Just think, a Federal bureaucracy with no judicial accountability. When did the Republicans become such spirited advocates of unrestrained big government? No government agency should be allowed to act, much less lock people up or send them back to dictatorships, without being subject to court review. Should we ensure that our immigration laws are respected and enforced? Of course. Do we need to undercut public health efforts, destroy our environment, debase our fundamental values, violate the rights of American citizens and waste taxpayer dollars on foolish or dangerous enterprises in order to enforce our immigration? Of course not. This bill is not a credit to this country. I hope Members stand up for American values and vote ``no.''

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Veterans Administration and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Conference Report. The inclusion of maternity care provisions which require health insurance companies to provide a minimum hospital stay of 48 hours following the delivery of a child and a 72 hour stay for cesarean sections; an increase of $25 million for a total of $196 million for Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS; and the adoption of a mental health party provision, all represent great victories. I am proud that maternity care protection, modeled on legislation which I introduced with Representative Torricelli, the ``Mothers' and Infants' Good Health Act,'' is included in this bill. As health care insurance companies continue to cut costs by reducing services and hospital stays the care given to mothers and newborns has suffered greatly. What has come to be known as ``express deliveries'' has led to numerous cases of undetected and untreated ailments--some potentially fatal--in both infants and mothers after they return home. The result has been additional complications, with more suffering, higher costs with increased emergency room visits, later hospital readmissions, and long lasting disability. The fact that it is now becoming the standard of care to release mothers and infants in under 24 hours following birth is atrocious. As the trend continues for health insurance companies to sacrifice care for the sake of profits, the government has an obligation to make health insurers accountable to provide adequate and reliable health care for all Americans. Numerous states have already enacted laws or regulations to enforce this provision. It's time that this became the national standard of care. I commend the Conferees for including it. As a Representative of New York City, the city hardest hit by AIDS, I am pleased that this agreement contains an extra $25 million for the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS program. At any given time, one-third to one-half of all Americans with AIDS are either homeless or in imminent danger of losing their homes. HOPWA is the only federal housing program that specifically provides cities and states hardest-hit by the AIDS epidemic with the resources to address the housing crisis facing people living with AIDS in communities throughout the nation. This program is critically important is not only securing safe and suitable housing for the millions of people living with AIDS, but also for sustaining the health of those who have lost their housing or who have been homeless. Without stable housing, people with AIDS are at a greater risk of premature death due to exposure to other diseases, poor nutrition, stress, and lack of medical care. The increase of $25 million for HOPWA will truly make a difference for people with AIDS in New York and the nation. As millions of Americans suffer from mental illnesses which are quite often treatable, the mental health parity provisions in this bill are extremely important. To require health insurance companies to equalize the coverage of mental and physical illness is only fair and right, and to deny equal coverage amounts to nothing less than discrimination. As we continue to educate people about the nature of mental illness--that it is treatable like any other illness--we must continue to ensure that individuals suffering from those illnesses receive the help they need. After a long year of fighting for these basic housing and health care protections I am pleased to see them included in this bill and urge my colleagues to support these very important provisions.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this country lost a great American on August 27, when the president of the Shubert Organization, Bernard Jacobs, died at the age of 80. A native New Yorker, Bernie Jacobs was a graduate of New York University and Columbia Law School. For nearly 40 years, working with his partner and friend Gerald Schoenfeld, he helped make the Shubert Organization a leader in the theatrical life of the Nation, through his profound knowledge and understanding of Broadway as an art and a business. The Shubert Organization owns theaters in Philadelphia, Washington, Boston, and Los Angeles, but on Broadway they are preeminent. I am proud to say that most of their theaters are in my congressional district. With Bernie Jacobs' leadership, the Shubert Organization has been instrumental in bringing some of the most important American and British productions to Broadway, some of which have toured nationally and internationally. Bernie Jacobs' championship of the creative community was legendary. As producers, the Shubert Organization has directly developed and produced shows by many of the leading playwrights, directors, and composers of this era. Bernie Jacobs' support for the crafts people who serve the industry was widely recognized, and his humanity led him to arrange for children and students to see Broadway shows for free. He was on the faculty of the Columbia School of the Arts and a longtime trustee of the Actors' Fund of America, and he received many awards from theatrical and charitable institutions. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that this man, who contributed so much of lasting value to America, should be remembered and honored.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the language currently in this FAA reauthorization bill concerning Doppler radar for both Kennedy and Laguardia Airports. I was actually somewhat surprised to find out that neither Kennedy nor Laguardia had Doppler to detect wind shear. I commend the FAA for wanting to install Doppler radar, but, unfortunately, the site the FAA is currently reviewing does not provide the best possible coverage of both Kennedy and Laguardia Airports. After speaking with representatives of the FAA, I was informed that if Doppler radar were installed at the site in Brooklyn, LaGuardia Airport would only enjoy approximately 75 percent accuracy in measuring wind shear. The 75 percent would be achieved only when used in conjunction with an additional system called L-WAS, a low-level wind ananometer which is approximately ten, 40-50 foot poles with windsocks on the end of them, which would be installed at LaGuardia to supplement the Doppler. The best way to detect wind shear to the maximum extent possible at both LaGuardia and Kennedy and the safest way for any of our constituents flying in or out of New York, is to have a dedicated Doppler radar station for each of the airports. Each of the Washington and Chicago area airports have a dedicated Doppler radar station. In addition to the technical safety reasons for not putting the station in Brooklyn, is the fact that the station would be put in a residential area. There is concern that this type of radar emits cancer-causing radiowaves. In an area that has some of the highest rates of cancer in the country, I do not believe we should subject these residents to even the possibility of cancer-causing radiation when there is an alternative that, as I said, would provide more effective safety measures for the flying public. Also, the FAA has recently issued a final environmental impact statement scoping paper that identifies several other sites, in and around Brooklyn, that could prove to be better suited than Floyd Bennett Field or offshore platforms, as I have suggested. The FAA should be allowed to study these proposals and determine the best possible site that would cover both Laguardia and Kennedy as well as protecting the health of local residents. I urge my colleagues to allow the current language to stand. Send the message to FAA that we need the best coverage for both LaGuardia and Kennedy Airports. This language currently in the bill would help ensure the safety of all of our constituents who fly in or out of New York, and ensure the safety of local residents.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with aspects of the fight against terrorism that many of us have been working on for a long time. Unfortunately, in a rush to do something, anything, in the heat of the moment, in their unbending partisanship and their slavish devotion to extremist special interest groups like the NRA, the Republican leadership has brought us a bill that will not do the job. Should we vote for it? It makes a start. Should we have had the opportunity to make it tougher and more comprehensive? Absolutely. But the Republican leadership has sacrificed thoroughness to partisanship. I have introduced two bills that would help our law enforcement authorities deal effectively with the terrorist threat. If we were having an open debate, I would have offered these two bills as amendments. Unfortunately, the majority will not let that happen. The bill before us gives us yet another study of bomb detection equipment and explosion-containing cargo containers, and asks the FAA to make recommendations. Have we not had enough studies? Have we not wasted enough time studying the problem? We know what the technology is. It is commercially available. It is in use in Europe. Let us quit fiddling while innocent Americans get blown out of the sky. My bill would require the immediate installation, would require the immediate installation, of state-of-the-art bomb detection equipment at all airports, and the immediate use of explosion-containing cargo containers, and it provides the funding to take these steps now. Mr. Speaker, another aspect of the terrorist threat not addressed by this bill at all is the danger posed by armed militias. Groups like the Freemen and the group of people who apparently blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City have been arming and training to attack law enforcement officials and private citizens. Many of these groups are neo-Nazi and Klan-affiliated, yet the Republican leadership does not want to talk about the problem, much less do anything about it. Mr. Speaker, my legislation would give law enforcement the ability to go after these groups before a tragedy occurs. The bill would violate no one's civil rights. It simply says you do not have the right to form your own private army and make war on the United States and its citizens. It is unfortunate that the rule is so restrictive that we cannot consider these measures that would save more lives. We should be working together to fight terrorism. This bill begins the job. For that, I will support it. But we have a duty to finish the job. We must come back in September and do it right, and we should do it without this ridiculous partisanship that says that half the House has no right to make its own suggestions.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, sadly, it seems clear that this House today will abdicate its moral duty and knowingly vote to allow children to go hungry in America. Sadly, our President, a member of the Democratic Party, the party of Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, will sign this bill. Does this bill allocate sufficient funds to provide employment for people who want to work? No. Does this bill provide adequate child care so parents can leave their children in a safe environment and earn a living? No. Does this bill ensure that people leaving welfare can take their kids to a doctor when they get sick? No. Does this bill do anything to raise wages so people who work hard to play by the rules will not have to see their children grow up in poverty? No. Does this bill reduce the value of food stamps for children of the poorest working people to push these children into poverty and hunger? No. Mr. Speaker, I know that scapegoating poor children is politically popular this year, but it is not right. We must stand up for our country's children. I urge my colleagues to reject this immoral legislation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 359 I was incorrectly recorded as voting ``no.'' I intended to vote ``aye.''

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I want to thank my colleagues, the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Rangel and Mr. Gilman, for organizing this, and to join my colleagues in remembering a distinguished Member of this House and a dear friend of every American, Hamilton Fish, Junior. When I was first elected to the House a few years ago, Ham was gracious in welcoming me and providing expert guidance as I learned my way around. As the ranking minority member at that time of the Committee on the Judiciary, on which I was privileged to serve with him, he was always a model of collegiality and decency. As we lament the sometimes bitter tone our work has taken in these recent days, we would do well to recall Ham Fish's leadership and his civility, his rationality, and his courage. Ham Fish was an outstanding and expert advocate always for human and civil rights. I remember first being impressed and becoming admiring of Ham Fish when I was a young law student and I watched on television as Ham Fish, as a member of the Watergate subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, voted to impeach a President of his own party, based on his view of the evidence and his view of the defense of the Constitution against aversion. America will remember Ham Fish for his legacy as a major architect of the Voting Rights Act of 1982, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and much other legislation that advanced civil rights. My home State of New York owes much to the Fish family, which has served this Nation and our State from the early days of the Republic. Ham carried on that tradition with grace. Whether taking the initiative to ensure agreement on vital fair housing legislation, or voting the Americans with Disabilities Act into law, he was a master of the legislative art, and used those abilities to the benefit of the Nation always. We will miss Hamilton Fish. I want to extend my sympathies to the Fish family, to Mary Ann, to Ham III, to Alexa, and to my friend and constituent, Nick. This House and this country is the better for his having served it, and it is the less for his absence from it.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3734, the Republican Welfare Reform Act being considered today on the House floor. This welfare reform bill is a direct assault on America's children, and on America's future. Most of the provisions of this bill would have their primary impact on low-income children. This bill would cut $61.1 billion from vital family survival programs, denying benefits to millions of children who are in desperate need. This bill eliminates AFDC as an entitlement program, and creates a block grant to the States, denying the assurance of basic necessities to poor families and children when they are in need. The child care assistance provided in this bill is insufficient. How do the authors of this legislation expect low-income families to get off welfare if they can't even afford a safe, decent, place for their children to be cared for while they work? According to the CBO, this bill falls $800 million short of the costs of providing child care assistance to individuals required to work. Furthermore, the CBO has estimated that this bill would fall $12.9 billion short of the funding necessary to meet the work program requirements in the bill. If we are to move families effectively toward financial independence, we must--before we remove a vital safety net-- provide the training necessary to perform jobs that will provide financial independence. Madam Chairman, the magnitude of cuts to and elimination of programs that provide children and families important protections is unprecedented. Not only does this bill take away the assurance of emergency assistance for the very poor, but it also reduces drastically funding for child nutrition programs and food stamps. More than half of all food stamp recipients are children, and this bill slashes food stamp spending by $28.4 billion over 6 years, putting many children in jeopardy of not receiving the nutrition they need. Madam Chairman, this bill is counter to the so-called family values about which there has been much discussion during the 104th Congress. If this really were a bill to promote and foster independence, it would focus on creating jobs and providing training, educational opportunities, and child care assistance. But instead, this legislation's focus is on removing basic assistance from children in dire need. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this very damaging bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which would remove from this bill dangerous language that once again strikes out at women. The language we are seeking to remove today says that women who work for the Federal Government--women who have made a commitment to public service--should not have the same rights afforded to women working elsewhere. Mr. Chairman, women in this Nation have a constitutionally protected right to choose whether to have an abortion. This is the law of the land. But some members of this House realizing that the vast majority of the American people support a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose, are trying to do away with this fundamental right bit by bit, woman by woman. We must not allow this to happen. Because abortion is a legal medical procedure, most major health plans provide coverage for women who choose to have an abortion. Private insurance companies recognize that their female customers are perfectly capable of making this deeply personal choice without interference. Do we think that our moral judgement is superior to that of the thousands of women serving our communities and our Nation? What do we know that major insurance companies, U.S. corporations, and the majority of our constituents don't know? It's time to get off the high horse, to quit playing games with the rights of women and to respect the moral judgement of the women we represent. I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am very gratified to hear that this amendment is being accepted, at least for the time being. I want to say that the practice of physicians being offered incentives, positive incentives that if they deny a treatment, they get more money, and negative incentives, if they grant the treatment, they get less money, and this form of health care that is proliferating throughout this country has led, as the gentleman said, to many denials of health care where it was needed, and it also constitutes an institutionalized conflict of interest. If someone came to any Member of this body and said, ``Vote this way and I will pay you $1,000,'' we would call that a bribe, it would be against the law. But, in effect, what you have with many of these HMO's now is a practice where the insurance company comes to the doctor and says, ``If in all your patients this next week you do not refer more than ``X'' number to specialists or to have a test, a CAT scan, we will give you more money, and if you do, we will take away money from you.'' So the doctor, when he looks at a patient and thinks, do I really need to? This patient has chest pains, whatever. Do I need to refer him to a cardiologist, has to think in the back of his or her mind, gee, I have already referred three people to a specialist this week. If I refer a fourth, it will cost me money. It is putting a direct conflict between the patient's interest, which the doctor is sworn to uphold, and the doctor's financial interest. That is an institutionalized conflict of interest. It is a fundamental problem and this amendment begins to address that, and I thank the body for accepting it.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this vote will show whether this House lives in a dream world or in the real world. In the real world, not every child can talk to his parents or her parents. In the real world, there are child abusers as parents; there are absentee parents; there are ignorant parents; there are children who as teenagers who are sexually active. Mr. Chairman, the vote on this amendment will determine whether they get contraception or AIDS; whether they get contraception or have an abortion; whether they get contraception or the back of our hands. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma that would require teens to obtain written parental consent before receiving any services at family planning clinics that receive title X funding. These clinics serve as critical entry points into the health care system for young people where they can obtain the full range of services including general checkups, routine gynecological exams, breast and cervical cancer screening, screening and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, screening for HIV, and family planning services. Adolescents already tend to underutilize existing health care services. Setting up more barriers to their access to services will only exacerbate this problem. These clinics strongly encourage their patients to discuss their concerns and cases with their parents. Most minors do bring a parent or responsible elder with them when they seek these vital health care services. Many adolescents feel comfortable and safe speaking with their parents normally and will communicate with them in times of crisis. However, due to a myriad of circumstances, there are many teenagers who feel they cannot discuss such issues with their parents. Eighty-six percent of the teenagers who used title X-funded services for the first time were sexually active long before they entered the clinic. I know there are some who believe that teenagers, faced with reduced access to birth control, would reduce sexual activity. Unfortunately, that's not how the world works. Preventing them from gaining access to vital resources for preventing unwanted pregnancies and the spread of AIDS and other STDs will not change that. There will be more cases of AIDS and more teen pregnancies. One in every five American youngsters is infected with some form of sexually transmitted disease before the age of 21. The fastest growing population of Americans who have AIDS is among 18-24 years olds. This amendment will increase the number of teenage pregnancies, abortions, and of youth who contract diseases. This amendment also seriously encroaches on States' rights. It will nullify current laws that exist in 50 of the States that do not require teens to have parental consent for screening and treatment of STD's. It would also nullify laws in 28 States that permit minors to receive pregnancy testing services without consent, and in 24 States that explicitly allow teens to receive family planning services including the distribution of contraceptives. The amendment includes a provision that would allow States to enact new laws after passage of this bill, which would override the Federal requirement. This process is a costly waste of taxpayers' money and States' time when most of these services are time sensitive. These States have already decided this issue yet this amendment would nullify those laws. The majority has consistently fought to minimize large government and return power to the States, yet here it is attempting to overrule long standing State laws. Enforced parental consent will also disproportionately impact low- income teens who can not afford needed services in private medical offices. The Labor, Health and Human Services, Education bill mandates that priority for family planning services be given to individuals from low-income families, as it should be. This amendment creates a double standard in availability of these services to adolescents. Confidentiality and access to vital services are already protected for those who can afford private health care. However, this amendment would restrict access to these services for those who can not afford private health care. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my vigorous support for continued Federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and my opposition to the Hefley amendment. The CPB provides countless hours of joy, education and entertainment to over one hundred million Americans each week. Through stations and projects that range from public television, to radio programming, to the World Wide Web, the CPB reaches virtually every household in America with a television, radio, or computer. The average American child will watch more than 4,000 hours of television by kindergarten. The CPB helps parents to use the television as an educational tool. Few American children have not explored the depth of their imagination as they watched the Land of Make Believe with Mr. Rogers. And as Americans continue the life-long learning process, the CPB provides such classics as Masterpiece Theater, Great Performances and a plethora of documentaries exploring diverse subjects in a depth rarely found elsewhere. In short, CPB programs have become an integral part of American life. CPB programs extend to the Internet as well. In 15 projects across the country, students consult experts online, publishing their writings and receiving educational assistance on the World Wide Web. In areas of our Nation where the local newspaper is published just once a week, public radio is one of the few sources of daily local news and live events, functioning as a lifeline for many. In addition, CPB radio service provides radio reading service for the blind. For a mere one dollar and nine cents per American, we can offer Americans a chance to learn, explore and expose themselves to ideas they would not otherwise have free access to. Federal funding of CPB must be kept at the highest level possible. At a time when many in Congress are concerned about the violent and offensive content on commercial television, it is especially surprising to find so much hostility directed at the CPB which produces some of the best educational and family entertainment available. All of the programs and services I have just mentioned would be put at risk by the Hefley amendment. This amendment seeks to stop Federal funding for Pacifica-Radio because of what Mr. Hefley claims to be antisemitic and racist programming. I have been informed by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that the comments Mr. Hefley is concerned with were made by callers to shows, not by the hosts of the program. In fact, it is included in Pacifica-Radio's own charter that antisemitic or bigoted remarks about any group are grounds for a programs removal from the air. In addition, this amendment would not accomplish its purported goal. Congress set up specific guidelines as to how CPB awards its radio grants. CPB does not have the discretion to deny a grant because they do not like a program and/or its content. If a grant applicant meets the criteria set forth by Congress, CPB is obligated to award the grant. Cutting an arbitrary $1 million will not end broadcasts by Pacifica, but it will hinder all the worthwhile work done by the CPB. We may well strongly disagree with or dislike comments made in many broadcast arenas. When such comments are made, it is our responsibility to condemn those comments, not to make an across-the-board cut from the budget which funds the very worthwhile programming provided by the CPB. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Hefley amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] to strike a rider in the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997, that would prohibit the Occupational Safety and Health Administration from using funds in the bill to develop standards on ergonomic protection for workers, or to record or report ergonomic-related injuries or illnesses. This language is another attempt by the majority to shred and halt the progress of crucial worker health and safety protections. By prohibiting key protections, this language will place thousands of Americans, unnecessarily, at a great health and safety risk. Ergonomic related injuries result from poorly designed work stations and repetitious work. Workers develop such debilitating ailments as carpal-tunnel syndrome, tendinitis, and back strain. These injuries account for one-third of all lost-time work injuries in the United States and represent the most significant safety and health problem facing American workers today. These injuries can have such painful, serious effects, that they are disabling and disruptive to the lives of those who suffer from them. Furthermore, the continual growth of ergonomic-workplace hazards places strain on the American economy, in lost work days, and increased health care costs. Ergonomic workplace injuries and illnesses in this nation have skyrocketed in recent years. The reports of symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome have increased for many workers. For example, 81 percent of telephone operators responding to a 1995 survey conducted by the Communications Workers of America reported hand or wrist pain. This country is in dire need of stronger health and safety regulations. It is unacceptable that millions of Americans suffer from disabling work-related injuries each year when these injuries could be prevented by requiring OSHA to develop studies and standards that would ensure healthier workplaces. Worse still, the authors of this provision don't even want OSHA to gather information on ergonomic injuries in the workplace. Apparently, when it comes to protecting workers' health, the majority believes that ignorance is bliss. It is the role of this Government to work fervently, and responsibly to ensure a safe and healthful workplace for American workers, and for a productive economy. I urge the Congress to support this amendment to strike the rider, and to support workplace protections.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment that would free Medicaid and Medicare patients from the gag rules imposed on many health care professionals and their patients. As a cosponsor of the Ganske-Markey-Nadler legislation and the author of the Health Care Consumer Protection Act that would place many more restrictions on HMO's, I am keenly aware of the dangerous effect that can result from efforts to cut costs by HMO's at the expense of patient care. In many cases health care professionals are told they may not give patients a full assessment of their health care needs; they may not tell the patient the full truth about available treatment options because it could cut the profit margin for the HMO if the patient actually gets the treatment he or she needs. Under these gag rules doctors are often compelled to lie to their patients. Patients are prevented from receiving a true assessment of their medical needs. This is nothing short of immoral. Health care providers should not be barred from providing health care. Patients seeking medical treatment have a right to an honest assessment of their needs and of available treatment options. Patients seeking medical treatment have a right to an honest assessment of their needs. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment that would lift the gag rule at least for Medicare and Medicaid recipients.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we began our national life by declaring that all men are created equal. We did not really mean it. We meant that all white men of property are created equal. The history of this country is largely the history of expanding that definition to all white men, to white men and black men, to white men and black men and white women and black women. We have achieved all that, but we said we want to achieve all that. We are just beginning to go down that road for gay and lesbian people. We still permit discrimination by law. We are just beginning to expand that definition, and we will. The arguments against gay and lesbian marriage are essentially the same argument that we used to hear against black-white marriages. We had antimiscegenation laws in this country. I have no doubt that one day we will permit in every State in this Union, and we will celebrate, gay and lesbian marriages. One day we will look back and wonder why it was ever thought controversial to allow two people who wanted to share each other's lives in a committed, monogamous relationship to undertake the obligations and benefits of marriage, why it was ever thought that allowing gay and lesbian people to visit each other in the hospital or to share each other's pension rights posed a threat to marriages of heterosexual people. But the bill before us today is not designed to solve a real problem. It is designed to appeal to fear and prejudice and hatred and bigotry. It is also a fraud. We are told we must pass this bill to protect our States from being compelled by the Constitution's full faith and credit clause to recognize same-sex marriages entered into in Hawaii. Aside from the fact they were a year or two away from Hawaii making any such decision, the full faith and credit clause does not compel or would not compel States to do such a thing. The public policy exception that today allows New York or Connecticut to refuse to recognize a 15-year-old marriage entered into in States which permit 15-year-old marriages would permit States on public policy grounds not to recognize same-sex marriages if they choose not to. So that section of the bill is unnecessary. But the other section of the bill, the section that defines marriage in Federal law for the first time and says to any State, ``No matter what you do, whether you do it by referendum or by public decision or by legislative action, the Federal Government won't recognize a marriage contracted in your state if we don't like the definition. We are going to trample the States' rights,'' shows exactly where this bill is coming from. We are going to say those are second-class marriages because we overruled New York or Connecticut or Hawaii or whoever decides to do that. Why do we want to start down the road of a Federal marriage law? This bill, Mr. Chairman, defends against a nonexistent threat. Marriages in this country are threatened by a 50 percent divorce rate, by drugs, by alcoholism, by gambling, by immaturity, by lots of things, but not by allowing gay or lesbian couples to formalize their relationships and pursue their happiness. Mr. Chairman, this is a despicable bill, and I urge its defeat.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to restore $2.6 million to support vital research into injury reduction and violence prevention. Forty thousand Americans, almost 6,000 children, are killed by firearms every year. In communities across this Nation, parents must put their children to bed at night fearing that they might be shot in their sleep by a stray bullet. The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control has taken a scientific approach to studying this problem. That is why their work has passed muster with the New England Journal of Medicine's peer review process and with the American Medical Association. But apparently the NRA is fearful that the facts may move concerned Americans to want to do something about the problem. I think the fact that thousands of Americans are shot every year is a real problem. I think the lives of our children are so important that maybe, just maybe, this Congress should for once say ``no'' to the NRA and do something about our children being shot. All the authors of this amendment ask is that we not be afraid to gather the facts about gun-related violence in America so we may know better how to deal with this problem and how to prevent it. Vote for this amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, marriage does not need defense from Congress. Two gay people applying for the benefits and the obligations of marriage should stay together their whole life, that does not threaten a marriage. If your marriage is threatened, it may be because you have lost your job and cannot provide for your family. It may be because of emotional reasons. Congress is not going to save your marriage. If your marriage is not threatened, you do not need Congress to intervene. I will talk about that later. What I want to say now is that this bill is a fraud from beginning to end. It is a fraud. It purports to do two things: It is going to save the other States from having to go along with same sex marriages if and when Hawaii does so. No; it will not. First of all under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has always recognized the public policy exception. If one State recognizes 12-year-old marriages and New York chooses not to, New York does not have to recognize a marriage of 12- year-olds if they get married in one State and move to New York, and so forth. If Hawaii chooses to recognize same sex marriages and Colorado or New Jersey has a policy against same sex marriages, they will not be forced to recognize it under the existing Constitution and the existing law. If they were, if the Supreme Court read the full faith and credit clause differently than it does, this could not stop it because you cannot amend the Constitution by a statute. So this bill is unnecessary for that purpose and were it necessary it would be ineffective. But the second clause of the bill is the really pernicious clause because the first clause, save all the States from Hawaii, does nothing at all. It does nothing. It is a fraud to talk about it, a fraud on the American people. The second part of the bill is that assault on States rights which we keep hearing from the gentleman from Colorado and others as sacrosanct, this bill is going to defend States rights, nonsense. What this bill says in the second clause is that if Colorado or New York or Hawaii or New Jersey or any State chooses whether by judicial fiat or by action of its legislature or by public referendum of its people to recognize same sex marriages, the Federal Government will not recognize those marriages for purposes of Social Security or Veterans' Administration benefits or pensions or tax benefits or anything else. We will say to a State, ``Do what you want, we won't recognize what you do because Congress knows better.'' Mr. Speaker, marriage and divorce has always been a State matter, never to be tampered with by Congress or by the Federal Government. Why start down that road now? And if we start down that road now, we will continue. This is not States rights. This is Federal invasion.