Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule on H.R. 743, the so-called TEAM Act. This bill would be a flagrant violation of the rights of workers and is in absolute disregard of the democratic values of this country. Sixty years ago, this Nation enacted laws to protect its workers by ensuring their right to have an independent voice in the conditions of their workplaces. Workers were permitted and guaranteed by law the right to have a separate negotiating body on which they could rely in effectively representing their interests. As a result of the efforts of these organized employee representative bodies, or unions, for the first time substantial protection of workers' rights were achieved in this country, and many unfair labor practices and unsafe working environments were addressed and improved, not to mention improvements in wages and hours. This bill, however, ironically in the name of teamwork, would rob workers of that independent voice and thwart organizing efforts, leaving employees vulnerable to abuse by employers. This bill would give the management under certain circumstances the exclusive authority to set conditions of employment, wages and hours, sole authority to deal with labor disputes and grievances under certain circumstances, authority to select and appoint members of workplace teams, and the authority in some cases to set the agenda and even terminate employees at will. By dictating to workers who will represent [[Page H 9519]] them in discussions concerning the conditions of their workplaces, it strips workers of their basic rights to organize and to be represented independently. This kind of so-called cooperation between employees and employers would put workers in the most compromising position, in effect back where they were before the passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935. This bill is not about teamwork. What it really is about is employer domination and destruction of the rights of workers. This bill fosters the exploitation of workers and denies them a democratic voice in their workplace. The so-called TEAM Act is destructive of the democratic progress this Nation has made, as have been so many of the Republican bills that have come to this floor in this session. For the sake of fairness and for the preservation of the basic rights of workers, I urge my colleagues to oppose this very reactionary and very misguided legislation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington. This amendment, which includes the text of my bill, H.R. 1700, would lift the embargo against Cuba on the sale of medicines, medical supplies and equipment, and food. It is an appropriate amendment and would bring to an end a policy that is unworthy of this great Nation. I realize that most of my colleagues support the embargo against Cuba and support this legislation that will tighten that embargo to new and even more absurd heights. That is not the issue before us in this amendment. What this amendment asks us is, should the U.S. demonstrate its disapproval of another government by cutting off the sale of food and medicine to civilians, the elderly, the young, and the sick? Historically, no matter how repugnant we have found the behavior of other governments, the United States has not resorted to this immoral and inhuman form of pressure. When the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile set off a terrorist bomb on the streets of Washington, killing an American citizen, we didn't punish the Chilean people by embargoing food and medicine. The Chinese Government brutally oppresses human rights from Beijing to Lhasa and is rewarded by this Congress with most-favored-nation treatment. Salvadoran Government-run death squads slaughtered tens of thousands of civilians, including four American nuns and the Archbishop of San Salvador, and El Salvador was rewarded with United States aid. Even when we went to war against Iraq, there was not embargo on food and medicine. So what has Cuba done that merits this sort of inhuman treatment? Clearly, the Members of this House are so accustomed to voting for sanctions against Cuba that we have lost any sense of proportion. I certainly understand that most Members of Congress want to seem tough on Cuba. I know that's where the votes are today. But in our zeal to be the big cowboy in the hemisphere, we should not lose sight of fundamental decency. The embargo on food and medicine is wrong; it is immoral, and it brings dishonor to the United States. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am seeking to change a section in this bill that amounts to an unfunded Federal mandate which singles out New York City from the rest of the country. Section 343 of the NHS bill requires New York's Tri-Borough Bridge and Tunnel Authority to collect tolls only in the westbound direction on the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. This is the only provision of its kind in the United States. My amendment will restore local control over a fundamentally local issue; how New York should collect tolls on the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. Should [[Page H 9297]] it be one-way westbound, one-way eastbound, or both ways? I do not think, with all due respect, that Congress and the President really have the expertise to know which is best for local traffic patterns. Let that be up to the government of New York City. Currently, having a one way toll on the Verrazano-Narrows bridge creates a path into the central business district of Manhattan from Staten Island through Brooklyn across lower Manhattan out through the Holland Tunnel to New Jersey. This route is used by commuters and commercial vehicles to avoid paying any tolls whatsoever because the Holland Tunnel has a one-way toll in the other direction. This loophole has cost our transportation agencies between $7 and $8.2 million annually. Let me turn my attention for a moment from this legislative issue to one of funding. Does anyone here feel so strongly that they would be willing to make up these lost local dollars out of their State's portion of ISTEA funds? We are not talking money being paid by constituents all over the country. We are talking about money being paid by New Yorkers to our local transportation agencies for local transportation purposes. By what right does Congress tell New York how to raise money locally for local purposes or how to direct traffic on local streets? In addition to costing us local transportation funds, at a time when urbanized areas are being hard hit by transportation cuts, this unfunded mandate diverts vehicles into Brooklyn and lower Manhattan, thus greatly increasing air pollution which creates large pockets of carbon monoxide. We cannot afford this kind of increased air pollution in New York City. We are already a nonattainment area under the Clean Air Act and will be hit with penalties by this Congress if we do not comply. But the same Congress will not let us take action to reduce congestion and clean up our problem. Besides being a cause of increased pollution and being an inconvenience for local residents, this congestion is choking off maritime commerce from the Red Hook and South Brooklyn Marine Terminals in Brooklyn, as well as from numerous small commercial and light manufacturing businesses on the Brooklyn waterfront and in Sunset Park. We are losing jobs, and it will get worse. A small minority in our city want to use the Federal Government to circumvent local government and the popular will of the majority in our city. Left alone, New Yorkers will do what is in our own best interest. I am convinced we will get rid of the one-way tolls. Maybe I am wrong and the gentlewoman from Staten Island is correct and the local decision will be to leave the tolls the way they are. The gentlewoman from Staten Island will get up in a few minutes and argue that I am wrong and that the one-way tolls are correct for various local reasons. The point is that decision, whether I am right or she is right on local traffic patterns and impacts in New York City, should not be for this body. We claim to be for States' rights. I know we are not consistent. Sometimes we are, and sometimes we are not. But this is ridiculous. Congress is going to tell New York City which direction a toll should be for all time in law on a local bridge. The decision belongs locally. This unfunded mandate has caused the congestion in our streets, killed local businesses, and destroyed the quality of life in some of our communities; and unless we adopt this amendment and allow New Yorkers to decide what is best for our city, Congress will be allowing and mandating the continuing deterioration of these areas. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, not put one-way tolls on the Verrazano Bridge into Federal law. Let New Yorkers make the decision whether the Verrazano Bridge should have one-way tolls eastbound, westbound, no tolls, or tolls in both directions. That is a local decision. It should be kept local, and I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, let me say I join the gentlewoman in hoping that this will be worked out, but simply would observe that at this time there is a lawsuit pending. It was brought about a week ago by the comptroller of the city of New York against the Governor of the State of New York on issues having to do with whether, in fact, the State has met its legal obligation under a previous court settlement under which it is bound to make an application of the payback waiver. If that lawsuit should be successful, they are going to be bound to make the application, but the deadline is September 30. If this is not worked out, if the lawsuit is unsuccessful, if the Governor is not compelled by the lawsuit to make an application or they decide that they are not going to, then this amendment is not necessary. But if the Governor should decide he wants to make the waiver, as these things are discussed in New York, or if the courts tell him he must, then this amendment will be necessary, All the amendment does, Mr. Chairman, is give extra time to the Governor. It does not bind the Governor. It is up to him and the lawsuit in New York. This gives not just the Governor, this gives the State 2 years to make the application if they want to. Currently, the Governor does not want to because he does not agree with the conditions the Federal Government would impose on that waiver. But he will either decide to do so or he will not, or he will be ordered by the courts to do so, or he will not. All this amendment says is give New York some extra time. So this does not prejudice anybody and it does not cost anybody any money. I suspect that the Governor is going to need this amendment, even if he does not think so now, if he should be ordered by the courts to make the application. Because if he is ordered to make the application, and there is no extra time, the court may very well tell him that he is bound by the conditions of the Federal Government but he does not get the money, or he does not get the positive aspects of it. So I think that adoption of this amendment will simply give the State an additional time for the option, and it does not force them to do it. I would urge this be adopted.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply extends a statutory deadline for New York either to repay funds spent to acquire rights-of- way for the Westway project or to apply for a so-called payback waiver which would allow those funds to be spent current eligible projects. The amendment is revenue-neutral. It provides no new funds for New York City, does not draw on the highway trust fund, nor would a failure to extend this deadline make available any additional funds to the highway trust fund. However, failure to extend this deadline could result in these funds being misdirected away from the communities whose transportation needs they were expended to serve. This extension is temporary. It gives the State department of transportation 2 years to file a new application for a payback waiver in compliance with U.S. DOT guidance. This is money New York received as part of its share of transportation funding. We should be able to use this funding for its intended purpose--to serve the transportation needs of our community. However, unless this deadline is extended, a legal technicality, combined with bureaucratic wrangling, could place these important transportation initiatives in jeopardy. We fought long and hard to ensure that this money would be spent in the most productive and efficient manner possible. I ask my colleagues' assistance in straightening out this bureaucratic mess so that our local transportation authorities can move forward with serving the transportation needs of our city. Mr. Chairman, there is currently pending, or there was, I should say, a lawsuit. The settlement of that lawsuit bound the Governor of the State of New York and the mayor of the city of New York and the two comptrollers that the Governor would make a good faith application for a payback waiver. The previous administration in New York made such an application in 1990. It was clearly not in compliance with Federal guidelines. It was, therefore, rejected by the Federal Government and it is not regarded as a good faith application. The question is whether the State administration has met its legal mandate under the court order to make a good faith application. There is a lawsuit pending now, brought by the comptroller of the city against the State department of transportation. If the lawsuit is unsuccessful, this amendment will not be utilized. It will be irrelevant. If the lawsuit is successful, this amendment would give the administration of New York the opportunity beyond the expiration date on September 30, a 2-year opportunity, to meet its legal obligation and make the application for the payback waiver. As I say, Mr. Chairman, this has no fiscal implications for the highway trust fund or the Federal Government but simply extends the waiver so New York can settle the lawsuit, get its act together, and make the application for the waiver.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 24.

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment to eliminate this unwarranted subsidy for defense contractors. Every year, U.S. taxpayers spend more than $30 billion to develop weapons systems for the military. That Federal spending has led to the creation of the most technologically advanced military in the world, armed with Stealth bombers, Tomahawk missiles, and supersonic attack aircraft. Throughout the cold war and especially during the 1980's, this country sacrificed funding for education, nutrition, biomedical research, and health care in order to support a bloated Defense budget. Unfortunately, we see that trend continuing this year with cuts in nearly every social program, including Medicare and Medicaid, while increasing spending by $2.1 billion for the military. Now, we see that some in Congress would like to toss our costly investment out the window by allowing foreign countries to benefit from the technological advances, made through taxpayer funded R&D, without having to pay for it. When U.S. defense companies sell their wares abroad, the United States has a right to be compensated for our help in developing their weapons. In the past 5 years, that dividend has amounted to nearly $1 billion in deficit reduction for the United States. Are we really willing to throw away a billion dollars of our constituents money at time when we say we want to balance the budget? Are we going to ask veterans to endure cuts in their benefits, while at the same time voting for the Nation's wealthiest defense contractors? I say ``no.'' The Citizens Against Government Waste, who supports this amendment, say ``no.'' And most importantly, the military retirees, whose benefits will be slashed to pay for this subsidy for arms merchants, say no. I urge my colleagues to support the Maloney, DeFazio, Berman amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut, and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. Today, after all the pious speeches about the honor and bravery and sacrifice of Americans who wear the uniform of this great Nation overseas, we have reached one of those defining moments of truth. The question is, Should brave Americans ready to lay down their lives in the defense of our Nation have the same fundamental rights as all other citizens? Can a woman in the service of her country go to a hospital and pay her own money for a legal and constitutionally protected abortion in a safe and clean American hospital? It is time to show the voters what we really think of our American servicewomen. Do we genuinely respect and honor them enough to allow them the same rights any civilian has? Or are all our statements of respect and gratitude to our servicewomen just more cheap rhetoric for use during campaign season or when we want the taxpayers to buy a weapons system the Pentagon says it doesn't need? Let's honor our servicewomen with more than just hollow rhetoric; let's respect their fundamental rights. Vote ``yes'' on the DeLauro substitute.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the mean-spirited provision in this bill that would cut funding for senior meals programs. For a very small Federal investment, senior means programs provide immeasurable nutritional and social benefits for seniors nationwide. For many seniors, federally funded nutritional programs are their only source of hot, nutritious meals. For others, a daily visit to the lunch program at the local senior center reduces the isolation often associated with our later years. These are benefits that cannot be measured. I have, in my office, hundreds of truly heartfelt letters from seniors expressing how much these programs mean to them. One of my constituents writes: I am unable to cook for myself being infirm. The Meals on Wheels is the only hot meal I eat daily. I am 91 years old. Before I retired at the age of 58, I worked as a flower maker. I went blind. I live on a fixed income and the healthy lunches provided help me get through the month. These meals make my life worth living. I could not manage without the Meals on Wheels program. Such sentiments are echoed in the hundreds of letters I have received from seniors opposed to cuts in congregate and home-delivered senior meals programs. We cannot turn our backs on seniors who rely on these programs. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing these cuts.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, can the Chair simply state if it plans to roll other votes? Some of us were waiting around for this vote.

Mr. NADLER. Could the Chair use names, please?

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, much of the debate on this bill, I am sad to say, has been full of sophistry and a little hypocrisy. Remember the law says you cannot use Federal money to lobby, period, existing law. What this bill says, and remember, we have paid professional lobbyists all over this town. This bill does not affect them. We have companies represented by those paid professional lobbyists who get billions of dollars of Federal contracts. This bill does not affect them. What this bill says is, to quote from yesterday's Chicago Tribune, if you are a nonprofit group and you get a grant to run a homeless shelter, shut up; if you are a for-profit group with a contract to run a homeless shelter, you are free to speak. In short, this amendment stifles nonprofit service groups which get money from the Federal Government to carry out purposes that the Government decides are for a public purpose, just the same as Lockheed gets money from the Federal Government to carry out a program of defense development that Government decides is a public purpose. But we tell the local group that is running a homeless shelter shut up, but Lockheed can spend billions on lobbyists. This amendment stifles nonprofit service groups while continuing to allow defense contractors, agribusiness, professional paid lobbyists and a host of others who also receive billions of dollars of tax dollars in Federal money not to be gagged. Why do we not gag these lobbyists, too? Because it is not in your ideological purpose to do so.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, what is the majority party afraid of today? First we seek to stifle not-for-profit groups. Now we seek to invade the free speech rights of students. Because this amendment is so vague, it would create a chilling effect on all speech in any college or university receiving Federal funds under this amendment. If a student group were to engage in activity that is interpreted by a Federal bureaucrat as an attempt to affect public policy, every student at the institution would risk losing Federal student loans. A student receiving credit for congressional internship programs supported by the university could put in jeopardy all the university [[Page H 8403]] funding that benefits the students at that institution. Why are we dictating to the States, to the students, to the college administrations how they ought to use their funds, not the Federal funds, their funds? We have, in the arrogance of power, decided that we know best. We are going to tell every State Governor, every college, every student body what to do. That is not what I thought this was all about.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my dismay over the elimination of the Summer Youth Employment Program in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, Appropriations bill of 1996. Over the course of this summer, this program will enrich the lives of more than 600,000 low-income students across the Nation, helping them develop the skills essential to achieving self-sufficiency, independence, and career success. The Summer Youth Employment Program provides young men and women between the ages of 14 to 21 with summer positions in libraries, hospitals, parks, and recreation centers. In addition to work experience, the program provides basic and remedial education and job search assistance, preparing our Nation's youth for further successful participation in the work force. The program has helped employ and train more than 7 million students over an 11 year period. A survey conducted by the National Society for Hebrew Day Schools found three-fifths of former SYEP participants successfully employed in professional, managerial, computer, technical, sales, health or public safety fields. The Summer Youth Employment Program does more than give students a positive [[Page E 1612]] way to spend their summers. It proves to them that they can succeed by helping them develop the skills to succeed. Mr. Chairman. I am appalled at the elimination of this very valuable program. It is shameful we cannot make a commitment to devote a portion of $1 out of every $100 toward our youth's future by funding this program. Termination of this program will send the following chilling message to our Nation's youth: Your future is not worth even 1 percent of our Federal budget. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the elimination of this very fundamental program. The Summer Youth Employment Program is an investment in America's youth that yields positive returns for America's present and future.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for this amendment and my strongest opposition to the provisions in this bill which seek to limit the responsibilities and enforcement authority of the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB measures in this bill chip away at the basic organizing rights of American workers. This attack on the NLRB could mean the closing of half of the NLRB field offices--an obvious attempt to dismantle the ability of the NLRB to halt flagrantly unfair labor practices by employers and to provide necessary worker protections. The NLRB now takes over a year to resolve unfair labor practice cases. Ten percent of the cases are not resolved for 3 to 7 years. In the meantime, workers who have been improperly fired for union organizing activities remain out of work. Is it any wonder many workers are intimidated from being involved in organizing? The Republican leadership, by cutting NLRB funds by 30 percent, even in the face of this backlog, shows its true intent to make the rights of American workers, enshrined in the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, to choose freely whether to join a union, a fiction. This provision is a direct attack on the democratic rights of workers. It is an attack on their right to organize, and on their basic right to a fair, safe and healthy workplace. It is an attack on every working American. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to ensure the basic rights of America's working men and women and support this very important amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we have lost sight of first principles. This country was founded on the spirit of liberty, that what we give to our country, we give voluntarily. The Peace Corps voluntary service is voluntary. The draft is not in the spirit of American liberty. It was a concession, a concession to danger and to reality. For most of American history, we did not have it, and then we blessed ourselves as different from the tyrannies of Europe that had it. Mr. Chairman, for the last 50 years of war, hot and cold, we had to have it, of necessity. But now we do not. We have 2 million men and women under arms, as much as the rest of the planet combined. We would have plenty of time to prepare and to reinstitute a draft if some other nation began arming to match us with supposed danger. There is no danger that justifies this departure from our traditions of liberty. Mr. Chairman, let us remember what this country is about. A draft, a Selective Service System is obnoxious to the spirit of liberty and ought not to be maintained except as a concession of danger which does not now exist. So I support the amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment that would increase the Special Needs Housing block grant by $441 million, providing for the restoration of crucial funding to the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS [HOPWA], section 202, and section 811. Mr. Chairman, at a time when homelessness has reached crisis proportions and when so many very crucial programs that provide desperately needed services are being chipped away, one by one, we must work to preserve adequate funding for these important housing programs which are key to the basic existence of so many Americans. The HOPWA program provides community-based, cost-effective housing for people living with AIDS and their families. AIDS is now the leading killer of Americans between the ages of 25 and 44. 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 to provide assistance to those who are suffering from AIDS. This amendment is cost-efficient and will 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. The costs of HOPWA facilities are between one- tenth and one-twentieth of the costs of hospital or emergency rooms. 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. Sections 202 and 811 have also proven to be enormously valuable programs, which have provided thousands from our growing senior population and people with disabilities with affordable housing, independence, and security. Without these valuable programs so many risk homelessness, and, quite possibly, premature death due to exposure to 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. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I simply would inquire if the gentleman gets unanimous consent for 2 minutes to offer his amendment, does anybody get a minute or two in case they want to comment or oppose it?

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I, along with the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] and with strong support from the Porkbusters Coalition, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, and the National Taxpayers Union, offer this amendment to keep valuable taxpayers' dollars from being wasted on an outrageous boondoggle in my district in New York City. The issue is simple. In my district, there is an elevated highway, 13 blocks long, about three-fifths of a mile. This elevated highway, we have just finished repairing it just last December for about $92 million of the taxpayers' money. Now Donald Trump wants the taxpayers to shell out another $350 million to tear down this brand-new highway and move it a few hundred feet so that it will not interfere with the site lines of the prospective purchasers of the apartments in a new high rise luxury development he plans to build adjacent to it. Mr. Chairman, no one even claims that there is any transportation purpose for this project, no transportation purpose whatsoever. The only purpose of this boondoggle is to enable potential buyers of the luxury apartments in Donald Trump's project to have an unobstructed view of the Hudson River, thereby increasing the potential sales price of these units and the potential profits gained by the investors in Mr. Trump's project. I would like to point out that the local State Senator, the local assembly member, the local city council member, the two local community planning boards in New York City, the Coalition for a Livable West Side, and 4,000 New Yorkers whose signatures are on petitions I hold here, strongly oppose this project. I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge], and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Newmann], the Porkbusters Coalition, the Council and Citizens Against Government Waste, and the National Taxpayers Union for the strong support they have given this amendment and the work they have done to put the brakes on this boondoggle. Much has been said in this Chamber in recent months about balancing our budget, stopping waste and putting an end to taxpayers subsidies for millionaires and billionaires. Today we have an opportunity to buttress these statements with action. Donald Trump has been quoted as saying, ``I discovered for the first time but not the last that politicians do not care too much what things cost; it is not their money.'' Well, it is our constituents' money. This bipartisan coalition is answering Mr. Trump's cynicism by saying no. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Nadler-Royce-Minge-Neumann amendment to send a clear message that the days when a little influence peddling could get the Federal Government to take the taxpayers for a ride by spending $350 million to tear down a brand-new, perfectly good highway and move it just to increase someone's profits are over.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this is a very unfortunate piece of legislation. In 1935 we made a basic decision in this country that we believed in the right of collective bargaining for working men and women, and now we see a whole series of measures to eliminate that right. Repeal of 13(c) simply eliminates the right to collective bargaining for mass transit employees. Mr. Chairman, I spent almost 16 years in the State legislature trying to get funds from mass transit and to make sure they spent the funds rationally, and I still support that goal, and we have to have decent projects, but eliminating collective bargaining is not the way to go.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am seeking to strike from this bill an unfunded Federal mandate which singles out New York City from the rest of the country. This is not the first time I have gotten up with this amendment; the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari] and I have had a colloquy on this amendment for several years now. She has been on the other side of this issue. This legislation prohibits New York City from charging two-way tolls on the Verrazano Narrows Bridge between Staten Island and Brooklyn. This is the only provision of its kind in Federal law in the entire United States. Mr. Chairman, currently having a one-way toll on the Verrazano Narrows Bridges creates a pathway into the central business district of New York City by going through Staten Island and Brooklyn into the city, and going out of the city through the Holland Tunnel to New Jersey from Manhattan. Mr. Chairman, commuters and commercial vehicles which use this pathway can avoid paying any tolls at all, because the Verrazano Narrows Bridge tolls are turned around in the opposite direction from the other tolls on the bridges and tunnels across the Hudson River. This loophole has cost our transportation agencies that support mass transit between $7 million and $8.2 million annually. Since we are discussing transportation appropriations, let me turn my attention for a moment from this legislative issue to one of actual transportation funding. Do any of my colleagues feel so strongly that they would be willing to make up those lost dollars out of their State's appropriation or to increase the appropriation to New York in this bill by that amount of money? We are not talking about money being paid by my colleagues' constituents or by Federal taxpayers; we are talking about money New Yorkers pay to our local transportation agencies for our local transportation system. By what right does Congress tell us how to raise money locally and which way, and how, to charge tolls on a local bridge? In addition to costing us between $7 million and $8.2 million a year in mass transit funds at a time when Federal mass transit subsidies as the gentleman from Michigan noted are being greatly reduced, this unfunded mandate diverts vehicles into lower Manhattan because of the traffic pathway it opens up in which vehicles going to Brooklyn go through Manhattan to get out in order to avoid the toll, thus greatly increasing air pollution and creating two hot spots. That is to say, particular concentrations of air pollution which creates large pockets of carbon monoxide concentration. Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford this kind of increased air pollution in New York City. We are already a nonattainment area under the Federal Clean Air Act and are subject to penalties by the Federal Government, the EPA, if we do not comply and attain ambient air quality standards within the time limit set. But without this amendment, Congress will not permit us to take action to reduce the congestion and to clean up our problem. In addition to being a cause of increased air pollution, in addition to being an inconvenience for local residents in Brooklyn and Manhattan, lower Manhattan especially, this congestion is choking off maritime commerce from the Red Hook and South Brooklyn marine terminals in Brooklyn, as well as from numerous small commercial light manufacturing businesses on the Brooklyn waterfront and in Industrial Sunset Park in Brooklyn. We are losing jobs and it will only get worse. A small minority in our city want to use the Federal Government to circumvent the popular will of the majority in our city. The sponsors of this provision, which my amendment seeks to eliminate from the Federal law, know that left alone, New Yorkers will do what is in our own best interest and eliminate the one-way tolls. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of my amendment which simply removes the Federal mandate to have one-way tolls on this particular bridge and allows local government to make its own decision. This unfunded mandate has clogged our streets, killed local businesses, and destroyed the quality of life in our cities. Unless we repeal this provision, Congress will continue to mandate the continued deterioration of these areas. Do not help them do it. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and remove this detrimental provision from the law.