Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see that the sentiment that sometimes we ought to make decisions here and not leave everything to local government is more or less equally shared on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. NADLER. It would not be the dysfunctional housing authority but we would not make the decision. Let me simply submit that this whole dialogue or colloquy is a good argument why in this instance on the basic policy question, not the details which we can leave to the locals but on the basic policy that senior citizens and disabled people should not be denied pets in public housing, that we are entitled and we should utilize this opportunity to make this decision by adopting the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, bottom line, the language that we all agreed to is now in the bill?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair restate that? I could not follow what the Chair was saying.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, what I am proposing is that the gentleman would amend the amendment to read as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds may be expended from the land and water conservation fund established by Public Law 88-578 for the creation of a new refuge having a total area greater than 500 acres or the expansion of a new refuge of any acreage that would result in the new refuge having a total land area greater than 500 acres within the national wildlife refuge system, and so forth.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I want to know if the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], regardless of the merits of the entire question, would at least agree to a unanimous-consent request to amend Mr. Boehlert's amendment to make it do what he says it would do; so to say it would then read, withstanding any other provision of law, no funds would be expended, et cetera, et cetera, for the creation of a new refuge for a total area greater than 500, or the expansions of any refuge of any acreage that would result in the new refuge than being 500 or more acres. If the gentleman put in that language, it would at least make clear it would do what the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] says he intends to do and do what the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] seem to want to do. Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would point out simply that the language of this amendment says the expansion of a new refuge of any acreage. That clearly means a new refuge that is less than 500 acres. If we want to expand it by 32 acres or 60 acres, it requires the authorization of Congress. And if the gentleman did not intend that, I would hope the gentleman would change by unanimous consent his own amendment to make clear what he does intend because the language is very clear.

Mr. NADLER. I continue to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I appreciate his explanation, and this is legislative history. But I think Mr. Scalia and the Supreme Court and several others have scant regard for legislative history. I would submit that the plain language of the amendment says very clearly that a new refuge is a refuge created after a given date, and the expansion of a new refuge of any acreage needs congressional authorization. So ``new refuge'' is one of any acreage, 200 acres. If you want to expand it later by 20 more, you need congressional authorization. That may not have been the gentleman's intent, but that is what it says. This colloquy, as enlightening a it is, I do not think will be regarded by the courts. I would urge the gentleman, I do not agree with the amendment in any event, but I would urge him, sir, even to effectuate what he wants to do, that he ought to change the wording of the perfecting amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, that may be his intent, but as I read the amendment, I think what it says, and the gentleman may not intend for it to say that, is if next year, without congressional authorization, the Fish and Wildlife Service were to establish a 200-acre refuge, which the gentleman thinks should not need congressional authorization, and 3 years later they decide they want another 20 acres, that is an expansion of a new refuge and they would need authority.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], and correct me if I am wrong, please, but as I read his whatever kind of amendment it is, if I read the perfecting amendment correctly, if I read the language, it says ``The creation of a new refuge having a total area greater than 500 acres of the expansion of a new refuge of an acreage needs specific Congressional authorization,'' and then it says ``for the purpose of this section, new refuges are refuges created after the date of enactment.''

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to protect both the environment and property owners from further government micromanagement. My amendment seeks to strike from the bill section 10, the provision calling for specific congressional authorization for the purchase of every single new wildlife refuge that uses money from the land and water conservation fund. The current system, which my amendment would retain, allows the use of funds from the land and water conservation fund to establish a wildlife refuge either by a specific act of Congress or by administrative act of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Historically, when a refuge is being sought through the administration process, the Fish and Wildlife Service submits a list of proposed purchases to the Congress for our approval through the Interior appropriations bill. Whether a refuge is being purchased due to a specific legislation initiative or administratively, land is purchased at fair market value as determined by approved appraisal procedures according to Federal law. The land is purchased, Mr. Chairman, only from willing sellers. While the Fish and Wildlife Service does have condemnation authority, it has not acquired land from condemnation for many years and does not have any plans to do so in the future. In fact, the Fish and Wildlife Service states: Condemnation has been used sparingly throughout the service's land acquisition history. The service recognizes the possible social and economic impacts of acquiring private property by exercising the right of eminent domain and does its utmost to avoid using this approach. Mr. Chairman, the era of big government is supposed to be behind us. Creating the need for Congress to authorize no specific legislation every single refuge is unnecessary and burdensome. The current process of using land and water conservation funds is working for landowners and for the environment. The landowners, who again are willing sellers, receive fair compensation quickly. In turn, the habitats and animals that are in need of protection receive it in a timely manner. Adding another layer of bureaucracy, the entire congressional authorization process, to this process, will do nothing but create a backlog of pending purchases of land for refuges. Then while Congress muddles through authorizing each single potential purchase, landowners, willing sellers, would be left waiting for Congress to act to collect the funds to which they are entitled. While the debate rates on about how to best protect property owners and the environment at the same time, we have in this amendment an opportunity to protect both property owners and the environment by providing a way for the landowner to be fairly compensated and the environment to be protected. I urge my colleagues to protect the property owners who want to sell the land and environment, which needs the land at the same time.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I am told that the statement that was made a moment ago is not correct--408 of the 503 refuges in the country are over 500 acres. That is the first point. The second point is that I understand the remarks of the gentleman from Alaska, but the normal procedure admittedly not followed this past year because Congress did not pass any appropriations bills, or the relevant appropriations bills, but the normal procedure is when a refuge is sought, the Fish and Wildlife Service submits a list of proposed purchases to the Congress and the Congress approves it through the committee report on the Subcommittee on the Interior appropriations bill. And that that has been invariably followed, that the report language of the Subcommittee on the Interior of the Committee on Appropriations lists which refuges should be bought with the LWCF appropriation and that the committee is only appropriated enough money to cover the cost of purchasing the refuges that it lists. Now, it is true this is not binding, but all parties have abided by this list except this past year when there was no appropriations bill and, therefore, no appropriations language. Mr. Chairman, I would submit that rather than requiring authorizing legislation, which we know can take a long time and add whole layers of proceedings before we get a refuge, that the process we have now, where essentially Congress signs off on it through the report of the Subcommittee on the Interior, is a better way to go. And, therefore, I would oppose the gentleman's perfecting amendment. I think that as long as we have that control through the Subcommittee on the Interior language, and maybe we ought to codify that, but the fact is that is the way we have been doing it, Congress has the control. The second point I would make is simply again, with all due deference, the fact is the language of the perfecting amendment says very clearly that you need congressional authorizing legislation for the creation of a new refuge having a total greater than 500 acres or the expansion of a new refuge of any acreage, period; a new refuge being defined as anything created after this date. So what that clearly means, whatever the intent of the author of the amendment and what the courts will clearly read into it, it is not interpretation, just read the clear language, it says that if a new refuge is created of less than 500 acres you do not need congressional approval for that, but for the expansion of such a new refuge a year or two later, also less than 500 acres, totaling less than 500 acres, you would need congressional authorizing approval for that. It is clearly not what the gentleman intends but it is what the language suggests. So even if you agree with the gentleman, it should be changed before we vote on it.

Mr. NADLER. I thank the Chair. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes. I simply have an inquiry of the gentleman from New York. I assume that the language in the gentleman's en bloc amendment that dealt with the same subject that we dealt with a moment ago is no longer in your amendment?

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

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in support of this conference report because despite some defects which, quite frankly, could easily have been fixed without compromising the fight against terrorism, it will give law enforcement important and overdue tools in the fight against international terrorism. Thankfully, the conferees put back many important anti-terrorist provisions that were stripped out by a majority under the sway of the extreme right. I commend the conferees for their vision and courage. This bill will give law enforcement the ability to crack down on fundraising by international terrorist organizations in the United States. No act of terrorism, anywhere in the world, should have a return address in the United States. It will allow victims of terrorism to receive restitution from their victimizers whether the terrorists are governments or organizations. It will add new criminal jurisdiction and penalties for terrorist acts so that law enforcement can reach the terrorists wherever they are. It will give our Government an enhanced ability to deport alien terrorists. It will enable law enforcement to battle terrorists who use chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons or who use plastic or other more conventional explosives. It provides new resources to those law enforcement agencies charged with fighting terrorism. At the same time, the conferees have repaired many of the dangerous and unnecessary civil rights violations in the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee, and which the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from California and I sought to correct in our substitute. I am pleased that the conferees have responded to some of our concerns. This bill no longer allows asylum officers summarily to send refugees back into the hands of their oppressors without review. This bill no longer allows individuals to be deported without knowing the charges or basis of that deportation. They will now be allowed to select their own attorneys and those attorneys will have the ability to consult fully with their clients about the case. This bill provides clearer standards for designating organizations as terrorist organizations and court review of that designation. Unfortunately, this bill still guts the rules governing the writ of habeas corpus in ways that I am confident the courts will ultimately rule are unconstitutional and unenforceable. I wish we had the votes to strip these provisions from the bill, but I know we do not. We will prevail in court on habeas, but today we prevail over terrorists and their cowardly and bloody handiwork whether they are in Cairo or Jerusalem or in Oklahoma City. We also prevail in the protection of many civil liberties that had been threatened by earlier versions of this bill. As with any compromise, I am unhappy with parts of this bill, but I am also pleased at the important progress we have made. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the conference agreement.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, a recently published book, Osler's Web, by Hillary Johnson, charges with impressive evidence that the Federal Center for Disease Control has ignored substantial clinical and epidemiological evidence that chronic fatigue syndrome is a devastating infectious disease caused by a specific virus rather than a psychosomatic illness as the CDC has claimed. Miss Johnson asserts that there is impressive evidence the chronic fatigue syndrome is, in fact, an immunological disease with many of the same characteristics as AIDS, that HHV-6, a virus may be a precipitating factor or a cofactor in CFS and in other immunological diseases, including AIDS, and that distinguished scientists who have come to the same or similar conclusion have been systematically ostracized and denied funding for the research by a snall clique at the Center for Disease Control. I have already contacted Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala requesting that she investigate these disturbing allegations, and I now urge my colleagues to join me in directing the GAO to look into this matter as well.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, the Republican majority's political gamesmanship knows no bounds--even when it comes to defaulting on the most important obligation of this House, providing for our children's future. Because of Republican intransigence on the fiscal year 1996 budget, which is now almost half a year overdue, local schools have been severely injured, now knowing how much Federal aid they will receive, not knowing how many teachers they can hire, how many books they can buy, what kind of science programs they can run. Not only do the Republicans think it is a good idea to slash education funds to pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, but now their irresponsibility is crippling local school boards' ability to spend whatever money we do send them. Let's stop shooting dice with our children's futures. Let's fund the Government for the second half of the fiscal year and commit ourselves to supporting the President's proposal to increase funding for such crucial educational programs as title I for basic reading, writing, and math skills, Pell grants, safe and drug free schools, and the School to Work Program.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we have had no hearings, very little time to debate, so let me give my colleagues a picture that is worth a thousand words. This is Police Officer Richard Morrisey who was shot by a crazed gunman in East Chester, NY, yesterday. His partner Officer Michael Frey was killed before he could get out of his car. In all, more than 100 rounds were fired from inside the house. The crazed gunman killed a police officer, his own grandmother, his dog, and himself. He did not have an assault weapon, but imagine the firepower and the additional carnage if he had. Cops tell us that military style assault weapons present the greatest danger to officers and civilians alike. These weapons turn murderous nuts like the one in East Chester yesterday or the Long Island Railroad into killing machines, able to fire multiple rounds quickly without reloading. What is the message we are sending to the family of Officer Frey and to our constituents who want to live free from fear? Is the NRA really more important than the lives of cops and law- abiding citizens? My colleagues, just say no to this abomination.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I did not refer to the gentleman in any way. I said his remarks.