Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the subcommittee for his recognition of the essential need for a source of capital funding for Amtrak and for his support of the concept of a dedicated revenue stream and to also express my agreement with the gentlewoman from Connecticut when she talks about the necessity for adequate capital funding for Amtrak. This country went through a long period of time in which we left railroads, in which we were heavily subsidizing the highway system and leaving railroads to their own devices, and when we subsidize one form of transportation and not another, and it is not a level playing field, we end up with an imbalanced transportation system. What we need in this country is a balanced transportation system in which people who want to go from one city to another do not have a choice only between a car or an airplane. We need trains, we need airplanes, we need Amtrak, we need cars, we need all of it. We need rail freight efficiency, we need a good highway system, and we have been very imbalanced. I hope that we can, working together, develop an adequate capital funding stream for Amtrak, because otherwise it will deteriorate. It has already been deteriorating. The routes are fewer than they have been. Many cities are being cut off, and we ought to have an adequate passenger rail transportation system. It ought to have a dedicated capital funding stream. It ought to have a dedicated operating funding stream. I support the efforts of the chairman and of the gentlewoman from Connecticut, and I hope we will in the ensuing months pay more close attention to this than we have in the past, because a healthy rail transportation system both for freight and for people, a healthy AMTRAK, is essential to the efficient operation, the efficient operation of the economy of this country and the economic growth of this country, not to mention the well the well-being of its citizens.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey. The amendment is straightforward and requires that before Federal funds are used to contract out highway work, the locality must determine whether the benefits of contracting out, including the costs of the contract, the costs of terminating public employees, the costs of administering and supervising the contract, and the costs of the projected unemployment, outweigh the anticipated benefits. This should not be controversial. Small businesses and middle-class homeowners do this all the time. They want to get the best deal for their money. The taxpayers have a right to demand that their governments should treat their tax dollars with the same care and respect. I know that privatization is very popular these days. I know some of our colleagues like to point to situations in which privatization saved the government money. I know in some circles, putting people out of work simply because they committed the unpardonable sin of devoting their energies to serving their communities as public servants, is politically popular. That may be right, it may be wrong in a given case, but it is not too much to ask that before a State rushes forward and begins contracting out, it take the trouble to find out whether it would be getting a good deal. Some have complained we have no business telling the State governments to comparison shop. I disagree. This is not a question of unfunded mandates. What is at issue here is a fundamental question of accountability, accountability in the use of Federal tax dollars. Demanding accountability, making sure that contracting out really will save money, is not simply local politicians giving some goodies to the old boys' network. It is not an abuse of our authority. It is a fundamental exercise of our responsibility as legislators and as stewards of the taxpayers' funds. It does not matter whom we send this money through, it is our responsibility to ensure that the tax money we appropriate today is spent wisely. That is what accountability is all about. That is our first obligation, and that is why I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which would increase by $15 million the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS Program [HOPWA]. At a time when both homelessness and the spread of AIDS have reached crisis proportion, funding for the HOPWA Program is crucial to the basic existence of many Americans. AIDS is now the leading killer of Americans between the ages of 25 and 44. The growth of the number of people infected with AIDS has been dramatic, and it is often the case that people with AIDS need housing assistance. In fact, 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. We have a responsibility, not only to respond to this very devastating public health crisis, but also to provide basic housing assistance to those who are suffering from AIDS. The HOPWA Program 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. The HOPWA Program provides community-based, cost-effective housing for thousands of people living with AIDS and their families. This amendment would save funds that would, in the absence of the housing and services provided in a HOPWA-funded residential facility, result in higher expenditures for hospital or emergency room costs. For example, an acute-care bed for an AIDS patient costs on average $1,085 a day, whereas the housing and services provided in a HOPWA-funded residential facility costs between one-tenth and one-twentieth of that amount. In fact, it is estimated that HOPWA dollars reduce the use of emergency health care services by an estimated $47,000 per person per year. Without this valuable program thousands of people suffering from AIDS would risk homelessness, and quite possibly, premature death due to exposure, poor nutrition, stress, and lack of medical care. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is socially, morally, and fiscally responsible. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the project that this amendment seeks to remove from this bill is an extremely important project. The American Museum of Natural History is raising a total of private funding and local public funding for $135 million investment in a national center for science literacy. What they are going to do is to rebuild the Hayden planetarium and create a brand-new planetarium with the most up- to-date resources, and not only is this going to be the best planetarium probably in the world, and that is all being done with local funds, but the national center for science literacy, which lists $13 million for that fund, will make the resources, the scientific and educational resources of the museum, available to every classroom in the country, to every library in the country, to anyone who could hook into the Internet, to anyone with a computer and access. So this $13 million is not a local pork project for New York, it is to take a major investment being made by the New York City government and the New York State government and private philanthropy in New York, and this $13 million will make the fruits of this investment available to everyone in the country. Not a dime of the Federal appropriation would go toward construction of anything in New York. All the Federal funds would go toward the development of the exhibits and the computer capability to make those exhibits available to every classroom, to every library in the country, and it is one of the most important investments we can make in scientific literacy in this country, and if we value our productivity and our competitiveness, we had better value scientific literacy. So, Mr. Chairman, I hope we do not do anything that will jeopardize this project today. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The sponsors of the amendment are seeking to weed out unnecessary projects that have no value to the American people. I support their goal, but differ with them as to the value to the American people of this important program the sponsors wish to eliminate under this amendment. As I said, I share the goal of the sponsors of this amendment of cutting wasteful spending. That is why I have stood on this floor again and again in support of amendments to accomplish this important goal-- that is why I have introduced amendments to eliminate funding for wasteful projects within my own Congressional district. But before supporting amendments that claim to cut funding for projects with no merit, we have a responsibility to study carefully the question of whether such programs may indeed have real value to the American people. I believe the education program this amendment seeks to eliminate truly does have value to millions of Americans nationwide, and we would be acting irresponsibly by eliminating these funds. The project is an extremely important project. The American Museum of Natural History is raising private and public local funds for a $135 million investment in a National Center for Science Literacy that will link one of the nation's most well-respected and virtually unparalleled exhibitions and resources with schools, families, science and technology centers throughout the Nation, including NASA's science education campaign. This project has the potential to make some of our Nation's most important achievements in science and research more accessible to schools and families, allowing taxpayers to utilize directly the fruits of their investment. The funds in this bill for the literacy center is less than 10 percent of the total cost. Over half of the funds come from private donors and foundations with the balance being paid by New York City and New York State. This project strikes a balance between private and Federal money to benefit the greater good, the education of our Nation. Not one dime of the Federal appropriation would go toward construction of any new buildings for the center. All of the Federal funds would go to develop exhibits and educational technology initiatives that will bring science to people across the Nation. This program is entirely consistent with the congressionally authorized Mission to Planet Earth, through which it is funded. NASA's Mission to Planet Earth states specifically that its mission is ``to help translate knowledge about our own planet to the broader community, to schoolchildren and families, to the general public, to share NASA's knowledge and investments with more scientists, science and technology centers throughout the nation.'' This science literary center is an effort to make available the resources, science, research, educational, and exhibition resources to the American Museum, as it is known the world over, to as many parts of this country as possible. Already, the museum hosts over 3 million visitors from every State in this country and provides services to more than 500,000 schoolchildren annually--again, from all regions of this Nation. The national center's mission is to take science education further: to make the resources available at the museum to more Americans, and translate our Nation's Federal science investments for every American and for the current and future generations of our youth. I want to read from a New York Times editorial in which they say of the proposed project, ``it will also turn the already remarkable Museum of Natural History into one of the world's greatest scientific resources.'' Additionally, I want to read from a statement by Dr. E.O. Wilson, a Harvard professor, winner of two Pulitzer Prizes and named by Time magazine last week as one of the 20 most influential people in America. ``An institution with such great strengths * * * from its world class collections and library to its outstanding staff, is automatically in a position of leadership. It also has a responsibility to lead because of its * * * historical importance of its collections.'' I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Over the past 2 years, the National Endowment for the Humanities has withstood a 40-percent cut in funding. Yet, it continues to provide services to teachers, students, and the general public to promote the humanities. There is no controversy as to the morality or quality of the services, provided by the NEH. In 1 year alone, the NEH sponsored 29 teacher institutes and 69 seminars for over 3,000 school teachers from 49 States, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the District of Columbia. These teachers in turn reached over 500,000 students in just one academic year. The NEH media awards will culminate in 70 hours of television and 69 hours of radio reaching close to 244 million Americans. Cutting the NEH budget even further would exacerbate the assault on public education we have witnessed in this Congress. Hundreds of thousands of school children will suffer from the lack of educational materials normally provided by the NEH. Teachers will not benefit from the seminars offered by the NEH. This House has passed legislation for the V-chip and the Telecommunication Decency Act because people in this body believe there is too much violence and pornography reaching American homes. But now, the millions of people who turn to programming funded by the NEH as an alternative to commercial television and radio--the kind of programming to which Members of this House give lip service--would be denied this valuable programming because of this amendment. Voting against this amendment is an opportunity to demonstrate a real commitment to better education and family friendly programming. This amendment should be defeated.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the lifelong accomplishments of Sophie Gerson, who has served the schools and the children of New York City for many years. Her dedication to the education of the young people of Community School District 2, which she has served for over 30 years, is evidenced by her history as a parent, a teacher and a school board member and president. She was a junior high school health and physical education teacher for 36 years, the last 25 at JHS 17 in the Clinton community. Her children both attended school in District 2, and as board member there, she was introduced or supported programs that have proved extremely beneficial to the children for whom she has been responsible. Ms. Gerson has been an active and outspoken advocate for the children in her community, and for that she should be commended. Ms. Gerson's accomplishments that are numerous and impressive, and her hard work has provided the students of New York's School District 2 with a nurturing environment in which they have flourished. Sophie Gerson's years of leadership and caring in her community deserve our utmost respect and appreciation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the accomplishments of New York's first and largest Suzuki-based music school, The School for Strings, on its 25th anniversary. The school, which is located in my district, is celebrating this momentous occasion with a soldout Carnegie Hall concert on June 14. I would like to commend the School for Strings for its commitment to the musical education of New York's children. With the School for Strings, the musical opportunities previously offered solely to child prodigies are offered to many other youngsters, including those who cannot afford lessons. The music education provided by the School for Strings is not limited only to students--of equal importance, the school provides a program for training teachers. The comprehensive offering of musical programs that the School for Strings provides to New York citizens has been consistently excellent, and I would like to recognize the tremendous contribution the School for Strings has made to music and its vital role in education.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the American people the terrible deprivation of academic and cultural freedom being suffered by the Albanian people in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, or FYROM. We have learned only too well in the last few years, the price of ethnic intolerance in the former Yugoslavia. In Bosnia, so-called ethnic cleansing has resulted in mass murder, untold human suffering. The world community is still attempting to put the pieces together in that once beautiful and harmonious corner of the world. As we all listen to the evidence being placed in evidence before the International Tribunal in the Hague, we must recall that silence in the face of oppression and intolerance is an invitation to disaster. Similarly, repression of a people's language and legitimate aspirations can be a precursor to, and indeed a cause of, the sort of ethnic violence that has gripped that region for too long. Albanians living in the former Yugoslavia have every reason for concern. In the regions of Kosovo and Vojvodina in the state of Serbia and Montenegro, we have seen the violent results of the suppression of ethnic minorities. People of Albania descent make up 23 percent of FYROM's population. They have a proud and rich heritage. They also wish to learn in their own language, Albanian. This is neither a surprising nor a particularly outrageous aspiration. Yet, this fundamental aspiration has been neglected and even repressed by the government. Ethnic Albanians who are deeply concerned about their standing in FYROM and their ability to fulfill their educational aspirations point out that at the universities at Skopje and Bitola, only 2 percent of the students are ethnic Albanians, although 23 percent of the population is Albanian. Albanians have attempted to open a university with Albanian language instruction, according to the prevailing law, and have been turned back with bureaucratic intransigence and brute force. It has not always been this way. In fact, the former Yugoslavia established an Albanian-language university in Prishtina, in Kosovo, in 1974. This university was closed by the Serbian government in 1990, depriving ethnic Albanians of this fundamental educational opportunity. The Albanian population of FYROM attempted to rectify this situation by applying to the Ministry of Education in October 1994 for permission to open an Albanian-language university. That request was ignored--not accorded even so much as an acknowledgement. Frustrated, Albanian students protested the lack of educational opportunities at the Pedagogical Academy of the University of Skopje in November of 1994. The student strike in support of Albanian-language instruction was organized by these students who believed that such preparation would enable them to better educate ethnic Albanian students at all grade levels. Without a response from the Education Ministry, educators attempted to open an Albanian language university in Tetovo, FYROM, and were suppressed by the police. An additional attempt was made to found an Albanian-language university in February 1995, and this time the force used by police resulted in the death of an ethnic Albanian and the wounding of 28 other individuals. Our former colleague, and human rights activist, Joe DioGuardi, who serves as the volunteer president of the Albanian American Civic League, was in Tetovo at that time. Mr. DioGuardi was joined by my constituent, Ms. Shirley Cloyes, who is also a dedicated human rights activist. On their return, they reported on the events at Tetovo to Chairman Gilman, who subsequently introduced House Concurrent Resolution 103 expressing the support of the Congress for the university at Tetovo. The former rector of the Albanian language university in Prishtina, Kosovo, a distinguished professor and one of the founding group of the Albanian-language university in Tetovo, Dr. Fadil Sulejmani, was in the United States last year. He met with officials at our State Department and with members of Congress to describe the work they are trying to do over there and of their concern that young ethnic Albanians have over their ability to study in their own language and to enjoy the sort of academic freedom and cultural studies that we in the United States take for granted. Our colleague, the distinguished Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Ben Gilman, has introduced House Concurrent Resolution 103, which expresses Congress' support for equal and fair access to higher education in the Albanian language in FYROM. Chairman Gilman's resolution states the distressing history and gives a clear account of the situation. The resolution will place the Congress in firm support of academic freedom and the right of Albanians in FYROM to study in their own language, and in particular in support of the efforts to provide university-level classes in the Albanian language at Tetovo, Macedonia. Mr. Speaker, we have seen too clearly what happens when governments fail to recognize the fundamental rights of ethnic minorities. The suppression of language and culture, the inability of people to learn and write in their own languages, have generated much of the ethnic strife that is tearing apart societies around the globe. This nation has succeeded, indeed this nation has thrived, on its tolerance and respect for different ethnic groups and their languages and cultures. It is a lesson that needs to be learned not just abroad, but, regrettably, here at home too. Tolerance and diversity don't foster division. It is when people are unable to express their cultures and speak their language that they resort to separatism. I join my colleagues in urging the government of FYROM to respect the aspirations of the ethnic Albanian people and to recognize the University at Tetovo under the laws of FYROM as a legitimate expression of and to allow classes to be held at the university level in the Albanian language. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record remarks by Congressman Bilirakis:

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this budget resolution. If a budget is a statement of priorities, this document demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the Republican majority still doesn't care about average, working Americans. It is mean spirited and short sighted. Although the Republican majority proposes to increase military spending--spending nearly $13 billion more than the Generals in the Pentagon say we need--they continue to attack programs that help the poor and the middle class, that make life better for the majority of Americans. They want to cut $215 million from the Health Resources and Services Administration, which funds Maternal and Child Health Block Grants, Ryan White AIDS programs, community health centers, family planning, and targeting programs for health professions. They cut $398 million from the Department of Health and Human Services. They freeze the National Institutes of Health at last year's level--a cut of 15.9 percent in real dollars by the year 2002. They freeze the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children. They slash housing programs by $20 billion over 6 years. They cut libraries by 20 percent, Aid to Higher Education Institutional Development by $46 million in 1997, and Job Corps by $88 million. While they cry crocodile tears over the working poor, they cut the Earned Income Tax Credit which helps people who earn the lowest wages and work hard to raise families get by. They kill the NEA and the NEH. They eliminate operating subsidies for mass transit by 2002, even though it is the cleanest, most environmentally sound transportation alternative, but they are willing to destroy the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drill for more oil. We need a budget that helps low- and middle-income Americans, educates our kids, makes our infrastructure more efficient, enforces the law and preserves our environment and our health. I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican budget resolution.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. Mr. Chairman, this amendment poses a question of single justice and decency for the members of this House: should the women in our armed forces, who willing place their lives on the line to defend our freedom be entitled to the same rights as everyone else? These women are not asking for any special privileges, or for publicly funded abortions. All they seek is the right to use their own personal money, and receive medical services which are the constitutionally protected right of every American woman. Now I know that this is an election year. I know that some of our colleagues need to do a little grandstanding for the extremist right. I know that American service women are not a potent voting or fundraising bloc. But for all the loud rhetoric we hear from the self-styled patriots day after day on this floor, you would think a little respect, and a little decency, might creep into their actions. Honor our women in uniform with more than just rhetoric. Leave politics at the door just this once. Support the DeLauro amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which would restore the Brooke amendment to H.R. 2406. H.R. 2406 repeals this very crucial housing protection, a provision in current law that has for the past 25 years, ensured that low-income families would not be required to pay more than 30 percent of their income on rent. The repeal of the Brooke amendment in this housing bill, would have a very devastating effect on many Americans, forcing thousands out on the street. This bill reneges on our Nation's promise that Americans who are most in need of housing assistance can afford to receive it. This protection has provided a critical safety net for those in desperate need and have saved so many from homelessness and destitution. Mr. Chairman, even with the current protections of the Brooke amendment, homelessness and unacceptable living conditions continues to plague America. There are more than 5 million American renter households, not including the homeless, who have ``worst case'' housing needs, paying more than half of their income for rent, living in substandard housing, or in the most unfortunate cases, both. This problem afflicts the elderly, working poor families, and others who strive to make ends meet on the minimum wage--a minimum wage, if I might add, which has not kept up with inflation, and has not been raised since 1991, because of staunch Republican opposition. Securing safe, affordable housing for those who remain poor despite hard work, for children or for those who might be unable to make a living on their own due to health or other reasons, is crucial to the positive development of today's youth and families, the safety and well-being of our elderly, and for our Nation's communities as a whole. I have many constituents who have contacted me about their fears of what this bill could mean to them. One constituent, who happens to be a quadriplegic, informed me that should the Brooke amendment be repealed, he surely ``would be out on the street,'' and I am further saddened to say that there are many more who would be put in the same situation. We need to ensure that affordable housing remains available. It is the right thing to do and it is the smart thing to do. Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of this very critical amendment in ensuring basic housing protections to thousands of Americans most in need.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. As I understand what the gentleman is saying, if you have a functional housing authority, they will make the decision. But with respect to my question where you do not have a functioning housing authority, HUD will decide on who is actually going to manage it and that private agency will make the decision.

Mr. NADLER. The decision will be made here in Washington by HUD?

Mr. NADLER. So in other words, in those areas where there are dysfunctional or incompetent housing authorities, no public agency would make the decision. It would be left up to some private agency. There would not be any public policy body in either the local housing authority, which you have defunded, nor the Congress nor HUD.

Mr. NADLER. Made by whom?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Illinois will yield, I thought the gentleman from New York just said there was no functioning housing authority there, in which case, who would make the decision?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we have heard that before. I am asking a question you are not answering. In those districts where you are defunding the local housing authority, where there are bad and dysfunctional and horrible housing authorities, if a senior citizen, a disabled person in a housing project in that area wants to have a pet, who will make that decision whether it is okay or not?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have one simple question to ask the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, if he is here. The question I have is the following: The gentleman spoke eloquently a few minutes ago about dysfunctional housing authorities that are not fulfilling their functions, wasting money, hurting people, et cetera. You are going to bypass those housing authorities in this bill and you are going to give money directly through tenant vouchers, et cetera. My question is simply this. In terms of this amendment, where you say you want to let local housing authorities make this decision and we should not mandate the decision, we are going to bypass these housing authorities because they are incompetent, who will make the decision as to whether we should allow senior citizens and disabled people to have pets, the nonexistent local housing authorities or the dysfunctional housing authorities?

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, let us not hear as an argument that Washington should not try to dictate to the local governments; because sometimes we do in this very bill. Sometimes we do not. The question is, is it appropriate, and why is it appropriate or not appropriate?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York. This amendment ensures that any elderly or disabled person in federally assisted housing, even federally assisted housing that is not specifically senior citizen housing, can have a pet. This is important for all the obvious reasons, which I will not repeat; but in addition we know, based upon scientific research, that older people with pets live longer, go to the doctor less often, and recover more quickly from illnesses. The lives of elderly and disabled persons, people in New York City and in the rest of the country, would be dramatically improved by this amendment. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of nonsensical arguments tonight on this amendment. Let me address a few of them. We have heard, What about snakes, what about reptiles? This amendment refers to common household pets. It allows almost complete regulation by the local housing authority, other than saying, ``not under any circumstances.'' We have heard, Mr. Chairman, the particularly hypocritical argument about Washington knows best. Let me particularly address the chairman of the subcommittee on this point. Let me particularly address the chairman of the subcommittee on this point, because he got up a few minutes ago and said that this amendment says Washington knows best. Let me say, yes, it does. We all say Washington knows best sometimes. We passed an amendment on this floor yesterday with four dissenting votes, a bill, four dissenting votes, 42 to 4, that said that every State must amend its law to provide for community notification when a sexual criminal is released from prison. Must. We did not give them a choice. We said they must. Thirty-five States must change their laws or else they will lose Federal aid, because we thought we knew best. I voted for it. Every Member sitting in this Chamber here voted for it, because most of us thought in that instance Washington knew best. Mr. Chairman, an amendment on the floor a few hours ago to this bill itself says that we are going to say we are going to force the housing authorities to institute these personal improvement plans to have working people, whose only fault is that they do not earn enough money because we will not raise the minimum wage, and because of economic forces beyond their control they have to have personal improvement plans. If the New York City Housing Authority thinks this is nuts, that is too bad, they had better do it or they will lose their Federal aid, because Members on that side of the aisle think Washington knows best in that instance. Mr. Chairman, to give one other example, we passed a welfare reform bill that says States must institute time limits, States must do various things or they will lose their Federal aid. I am not going to debate the wisdom of those things. The point is this House determined by majority vote that Washington knows best in that instance, too. The only difference between many of us, among many of us on the floor, is that some of us are honest enough to say that we will judge, that is our job as Members of this House, we will judge when and under what circumstances we think that Washington knows best, and when and under what circumstances we think it is more appropriate to leave a question to local control. The question here is, is this appropriate to leave to local control, or is this appropriate, as the gentleman on that side of the aisle thought it appropriate, to mandate personal improvement plans to say Washington knows best in this instance? What are we saying that Washington knows best about, what policy judgment? It is our job to make policy judgments. We are saying that Washington knows best that senior citizens, disabled people, are entitled to have common household pets if they want to. If the local housing authority wants to limit that in various ways, wants to regulate that in any way they want, it is a local decision. We will make the one policy that they cannot say ``not under any circumstances.'' We have made that policy decision, by the way, in the law, if they live within senior citizen and disabled household projects. Now we are going to make it for other assisted projects. What are we afraid of? I heard some rhetoric on that side of the aisle before, that we have crime in the projects committed by the senior citizens and the disabled or their pets, that we have gangs running through the projects. Not the pets of senior citizens, they are not the gangs. They are not committing murder and mayhem. I doubt that. Who are we afraid of? Who are we protecting? The fact is, the rhetoric about local control is just that: rhetoric. We all believe in local control under some circumstances. We all believe Washington ought to dictate policy in some circumstances. We disagree when. We disagree when it is appropriate. That is fine.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, so again I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] because it does not abandon the goal. It would stop the abandonment of the goal, at least as a statement of providing affordable housing for our people. But I commend the honesty of the Republican leadership in stating that that is no longer going to be our goal, because this bill certainly says it will not be.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the subcommittee for his honesty in removing the goal of providing affordable and decent housing for Americans as the goal of our housing policy. It is an honest statement of what this bill would do. This bill guts that purpose, and it is commendably honest that the Republican sponsors of this bill state that they want to abandon that purpose, which we have had since 1937, for the last 60 years, as our goal. We have fallen short of that goal to a large extent because for the last 16 years or so, 20 in fact, we have been putting very little money into the construction of new public housing. We have built, as the gentleman from Vermont mentioned, more jail cells than public housing units in the last 15 years. So I support the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] because I do not think we ought to be abandoning as a goal providing affordable and decent housing for Americans, though I do think it is honest, commendably honest, of the Republican leadership to state that that is what they are doing by removing that goal from the Housing Act, because that is what the provisions of the bill do. Let us look at the provisions of the bill for a moment. The gentleman from New York said, you have to get rid of the one-for-one rule which does not permit us to demolish eyesores and terrible housing. It would permit us to demolish that terrible housing if we were building replacement housing, if we were building housing for low income people. The fact is that under the Republican Presidents of 12 years, you keep talking about Democratic Congresses for 40 years, but do not forget about Republican Presidents for 24 of those 40 years, and Republican Senate for I forget how many of those 40 years. This House is not the House of Commons. We do not rule the country alone. Under the last 16 years of Republican Presidents, or 12 years, for the last 20 years roughly, we have not been putting much money into the construction of low income housing. We should. Of course, if you look at our budget projections for the next seven years, we are not going to. But we should. We should return to our goal of providing decent housing. But this bill, again, is honest. It recognizes we are not going to do it. What does it do? It recognizes the fact we are going to cut, the appropriators are cutting the subsidies to public housing agencies. That is going to cause a big deficit in their budget. We will solve that problem. And what do we do? Abolish the Brooke amendment. Let us solve the deficits of the housing authorities budgets caused by great reductions in Federal aid by saying triple your rent. But wait a minute, these people who are earning less than 30 percent of median income cannot afford to pay that, cannot possibly afford to pay the rent increases that would be necessary to balance the housing authorities' budgets after we have cut the aid. That is okay. Remove the targeting requirements. Kick them out on the street and let them be homeless, and we will move in a higher group of people, low income, but higher income than before, that can pay the rents. It is a nice solution. It all melds together, cut the budgets, kick out the people, move in higher income people. Great idea if your only goal is saving some money. But if your goal is to provide safe, affordable, decent housing, it does not work. That is why it is commendably honest to eliminate that goal. Let me say one other thing. This bill is an insult. It contains a provision in the manager's amendment that insults hard working people, hard working people whose only deficiency, whose only character deficit, whose only crime, is that they are making the minimum wage or perhaps one and a half or two times the minimum wage. We are going to tell them they have to have a personal improvement plan? There is something wrong with them? We are going to judge, maybe the subcommittee is going to judge or the housing authority is going to judge their morals and character? Simply because they do not make enough money? Even though they may work one or two jobs? I will tell you how to have a personal improvement plan. Double the minimum wage. That will give you personal improvement for a lot of these people. It will improve their living conditions. It will solve the deficit problem to a large extent of our housing authorities. It will not insult working people by telling them there is something wrong with them because they do not make enough money and we have to tell them you have to have a personal improvement plan. So, again, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this housing bill, which would force thousands of Americans out on the street. This bill signals the end to our Nation's commitment to providing housing security for those in our communities, who are most in need. But now, all of that is changing under the Republican leadership. This leadership would rather put an end to housing security for our most vulnerable. They would rather see these Americans, the elderly, families, and children, out on the streets, in the subways, in the parks, homeless. Big tax cuts for their wealthy friends are fine, but ensuring affordable housing for the working poor is something our colleagues on the other side just can't abide. This bill repeals the Brooke amendment. The Brooke amendment, for the past 25 years, has ensured that low-income families would have to pay no more than 30 percent of their income on rent. This bill also eliminates income targeting, which provides that the poorest Americans are ensured housing assistance and are afforded decent housing along with those of moderate income levels. Without this protection the poorest Americans could be segregated away from healthy mixed income neighborhoods where opportunities for advancement are greater. This bill reneges on our Nation's promise that Americans who are most in need of housing assistance can afford to receive it. These protections have provided a critical safety net for those in desperate need and have saved so many from homelessness and destitution. Mr. Chairman, even with the current protections of the Brooke amendment homelessness and unacceptable living conditions continue to plague America. There are more than 5 million American renter households, not including the homeless, who have worst case housing needs, paying more than half of their income for rent, living in substandard housing, or in the most unfortunate cases, both. This problem afflicts the elderly, working poor families, and others who strive to make ends meet on the minimum wage--a minimum wage, if I might add, which has not kept up with inflation, and has not been raised since 1991, because of staunch Republican opposition. Securing safe, affordable housing for those who remain poor despite hard work, for children or for those who might be unable to make a living on their own due to health or other reasons, is crucial to the positive development of today's youth and families, the safety and well-being of our elderly, and for our Nation's communities as a whole. I have many constituents who have contacted me about their fears of what this bill could mean to them. One constituent, who happens to be a quadriplegic, informed me that should the Brooke amendment be repealed, he surely would be out on the street, and I am further saddened to say that there are many more who would be put in the same situation. We need to ensure that affordable housing remains available. It is the right thing to do and it is the smart thing to do. Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of this very damaging bill.