Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 720, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act. This bill is supposedly aimed at preventing frivolous litigation, but it would, in fact, generate a whole new set of litigation, further clogging our overburdened Federal courts. Under rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may impose sanctions on a party that files a frivolous case or motion. A party subject to a rule 11 violation has a 21-day safe harbor period to withdraw or correct its filing, and sanctions are purely discretionary. This rule serves a vital role in maintaining the integrity of our legal system without creating a chilling effect on presenting novel claims. Judges, when they see frivolous suits, can sanction them and do. This bill, however, would restore a failed version of rule 11 that was enacted by the Judicial Conference in 1983, but which was repealed 10 years later because it led to disastrous results. Under this bill, sanctions would be mandatory whenever a court rules that rule 11 has been violated. The safe harbor period, when filings can be withdrawn or corrected, would be eliminated. We do not have to speculate about what would happen as a result of this bill because we have a decade of experience that shows us how catastrophic it would be and was. Under the 1983 rule, which this bill would restore, rule 11 battles became a routine part of civil litigation, affecting one-third of all cases. Rather than serving as a disincentive, the old rule 11 actually made the system even more litigious. In the decade following the 1983 amendments, there were almost 7,000 reported rule 11 cases, becoming part of approximately one-third of all Federal civil lawsuits. Civil cases effectively became two cases, one on the merits and the other on a set of dueling rule 11 allegations by both parties. The drain on the courts and the parties' resources caused the Judicial Conference to revisit the rule and adopt the changes that this bill would now have us undo. More troubling was the 1983 rule's impact on civil rights cases, which are often based on novel claims that require significant discovery to establish. A 1991 Federal Judicial Center study found that whereas civil rights cases made up 11.4 percent of Federal cases filed, they constituted 22.7 percent of the cases in which sanctions were imposed. If we return to the old rule, we could see a chilling effect in which untested, but no less valid, civil rights claims are never brought for fear of sanctions. The courts have ample authority to sanction conduct that undermines the integrity of our legal system. But this legislation is not just a solution in search of a problem. By taking us back to a time when rule 11 actually promoted routine, costly, and unnecessary litigation, this bill is a cure worse than the disease. Given that we already know this bill will be a failure, one wonders how it would survive its own rule 11 motion if Congress had such a thing. The courts, having tried it for 10 years with disastrous results, rightly rejected this approach 20 years ago, and we should reject it again. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 725, the misnamed Innocent Party Protection Act. The main purpose of this bill is to make it easier to remove State cases to Federal courts, where large corporate defendants have numerous advantages over consumers and injured workers. Let's not talk about the emotional devastation. We are talking about large, corporate defendants. We are not worried about their emotions. Their litigation departments are quite capable of handling the emotions. This bill will clog the Federal courts, drain judicial resources, upset well-established law, and delay justice for plaintiffs seeking to hold businesses accountable for the injuries they cause. It is yet another attempt by the Republican majority to stack the deck in favor of large corporations. This bill is the opening salvo of this week's series of bills by the Republicans to close off access to the courts to ordinary Americans. With every step they take, whether it be to remove more State cases to Federal courts, to make class action suits more difficult to bring, or to reclassify more lawsuits as frivolous and subject to mandatory sanctions, they are limiting access to court help for ordinary Americans. The so-called Innocent Party Protection Act would upend the century- old doctrine of fraudulent joinder, in which a defendant from the same State as the plaintiff is improperly added to a case in order to defeat diversity jurisdiction in Federal court, and, therefore, keep the case in a State court. Under current law, a defendant claiming fraudulent rejoinder has the burden of showing that there is ``no reasonable basis'' for a claim against the instate defendant, and, therefore, the case should remain in Federal court. This bill would turn that process on its head by placing the burden on the plaintiff to show that there is a ``plausible'' claim against the instate defendant and that the plaintiff has a ``good faith intention'' to pursue a claim against that defendant. Both standards are undefined in the bill, but it is likely that many plaintiffs would find these hurdles impossible to overcome at the initial stages of litigation before discovery. Furthermore, defendants will use this forum shopping bill to delay justice by routinely challenging jurisdiction. It will drain court time and allow corporate defendants to force plaintiffs to expend their limited resources on what should be a simple procedural matter. Under this bill, the preliminary determination of jurisdiction would become a baseless, time-consuming mini-trial before a second time-consuming trial on the merits. While large corporations could easily accommodate such costs, injured workers, consumers, and patients cannot. The practical effect of this bill is to force cases based on State law, which should properly be heard in State courts, to be considered in our overburdened Federal courts instead. Large corporations generally believe that Federal courts are a friendlier forum, especially since they are overburdened and they can afford to wait whereas the plaintiffs cannot, and they believe that they have a better chance of escaping liability for their actions in the Federal court. There is no evidence of a systemic crisis of fraudulent joinder, nor is there evidence that the courts cannot properly handle whatever issues may arise under current law. There is certainly no evidence that what wealthy corporations need are greater advantages in the courts. Yet, this bill hands them yet another gift from the Republican majority, and it is ordinary consumers and injured workers who will suffer. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 985, the so-called Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act. This outrageous legislation would severely limit the ability of injured consumers and workers to obtain relief through class action lawsuits. If that were not bad enough, the bill also contains a totally unrelated measure to violate the privacy of asbestos victims, and subject them to potential discrimination. Together, this legislation is just one more measure in the Republican parade of bills this week to further tilt the playing field in favor of wealthy corporations over ordinary people. Class action suits are an essential tool to enable victims of corporate wrongdoing to be compensated for their injuries and to deter future misconduct. Plaintiffs often seek to band together as a class when the potential damages they could receive individually are too low to make it practical to hire a lawyer and bring a lawsuit alone. But, as members of a class, they have the power to secure relief from a multimillion-dollar company and put an end to its illegal practices. That is exactly why the big corporations oppose them. It makes it harder for those companies to operate with impunity from the law, with little regard for the injuries they may cause. It was class action lawsuits that helped uncover years of corrupt practices in the tobacco industry and began to turn around a public health disaster, not to mention recover billions of dollars. It was class action lawsuits that revealed contamination of groundwater that cause certain forms of cancer. It was class action lawsuits that revealed fraudulent pricing practices and misleading advertising by drug companies, widespread employment discrimination, and predatory payday lending practices. Class action lawsuits also helped expose and bring down the sham university peddled on winning victims by the current occupant of the White House. But this bill includes a range of provisions that would make such class action suits practically impossible. For example, it would require each member of a class to suffer ``the same type and scope of injury'' as the named class representative. What this means is that if two people use a defective product, but one suffers first-degree burns while the other person suffers third-degree burns, they cannot join together in a class because their injuries are of a different scope. Or take a company with a pattern of racial discrimination. If some workers are being paid less than others for doing the same job while other workers find themselves repeatedly passed over for deserved promotions, they cannot join in the same class action because they would not be deemed to have suffered the same type of injury--one having been paid less, the other having been passed over for promotions--despite being victims of the same discriminatory policies. This is just one of a host of unnecessary and onerous requirements placed on victims by this bill that makes it virtually impossible to form a class. When added together, it amounts to a giant bailout for wealthy corporations at the expense of injured consumers and workers. Mr. Chairman, we do not want the Federal courts to be simply collection agencies to large corporations. We need justice for the small, ordinary person. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this legislation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an exceptional young Australian who is currently interning in my Washington, D.C. office. James Holland came to our office as part of the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Programme (UCWIP) and has been a valuable contributor to our efforts on behalf of New York's Tenth Congressional District. UCWIP has worked with congressional offices to foster strong ties and understanding between the United States and Australian governments by bringing the best and the brightest from top Australian universities to intern on Capitol Hill. I am proud to have personally hosted 13 Australians since 2003, each bringing their unique outlooks on policy and desire to contribute. James, a student from Monash University as well as valedictorian for the UCWIP Class of 2017, has worked in our office since January and quickly proved himself to be a highly valuable member of our team. He has researched important issues, attended briefings, and drafted constituent correspondence, among many other duties. He consistently displays a deep desire to learn and treats everyone that he encounters with respect. His hard work and dedication is a tremendous asset to our office and the Tenth Congressional District. My team has learned a great deal about the current political situation in Australia as James' fascination with America continues to grow. He is an absolute pleasure to have in the office and I offer him my thanks for a job well done. I wish him the best of luck in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, Republicans are continuing their crusade to cut off access to comprehensive family planning services. Last year they tried to zero out title X in their budget. This year they intend to repeal ACA's cost-free contraception coverage for women with private insurance. Today Republicans are attempting to stop the flow of title X grants to health centers around the country. Title X grants ensure that low-income families have access to birth control and can plan their pregnancies so that moms and kids stay healthy. Research has shown that without these vital services, the unintended pregnancy rate would be 33 percent higher and the number of abortions would also be higher. My anti-choice Republican colleagues should cheer this program, but instead not only are Republicans trying to defund Planned Parenthood so they won't be able to provide contraception help, but now we are hypocritically rolling back a rule that allows title X funds to flow to reproductive health centers, which are the most effective providers of title X services and which we were told would provide the contraception and other health services that Planned Parenthood no longer would be able to. Women are watching us today. They know that this joint resolution is nothing more than another attempt to stop low-income women from accessing the health care they need and to allow the government to once again step between women and their doctors. It is no secret I support a woman's constitutional right to access abortion; but even if you don't and are committed to reducing abortion in this country, you should step up to the plate and support comprehensive and robust family planning for all women. This joint resolution should do the opposite. We should all support contraception for the women of this country. I urge my colleagues to reject this joint resolution.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 387, the Email Privacy Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, which will provide a critical update to the privacy laws governing electronic communications. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, or ECPA as it is known, was enacted in 1986. It was an attempt to reestablish a balance between privacy and law enforcement needs at a time when personal and business computing was becoming more commonplace. Over the last 30 years, however, we have seen a revolution in communications technology, and what might have made sense in 1986 is vastly out of date today. New technologies, including cloud computing, social networking, and location-based services, have rendered many of the law's provisions outdated, vague, or inapplicable to emerging innovations. For example, even a single email is potentially subject to multiple different legal standards under current law. In 2009 and 2010, when I was the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, we held multiple hearings to consider reforms to our Nation's electronic and privacy laws. This work culminated in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Modernization Act of 2012, a bill I introduced along with Ranking Member Conyers requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant based on probable cause before searching emails. That approach, now embodied in the Yoder-Polis Email Privacy Act, is what we are here today to consider. In an era in which government access to an individual's private information held by third-party providers has become far too easy, this legislation will finally update our laws to reflect our new understanding of what it means, in the words of the Fourth Amendment, for ``people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.'' Clarifying the laws will also help industry stakeholders who currently struggle to apply the existing, outdated categories of information to their products and services, and it will provide a clear standard for law enforcement. This bill is not perfect and, clearly, there is more to be done. In particular, we must keep working to require a probable cause warrant for location information. However, this bill is an important step forward toward ensuring that our laws strike the right balance between the interests and needs of law enforcement and the privacy rights of the American people. I urge my colleagues to support it. I congratulate all those involved in its development.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask to bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban on individuals like Dr. Suha Abushamma, a Sudanese doctor at the prestigious Cleveland Clinic, who was denied entry, forced to leave the country, and, therefore, deprived the country of his medical services.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, there is obviously a difference of opinion in this country on the morality of abortion. I am appalled by the moral arrogance of the Republicans who would use political power to impose their views on the millions of women who disagree with them and want to make their own decisions. Though the Supreme Court has determined that neither Congress nor a State may place an undue burden on a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, the Hyde amendment makes abortion access virtually impossible for low-income women. As unjust and despicable as the Hyde amendment is, this bill goes beyond it. For the first time, Republicans are attempting to restrict the right of women to use their own money to pay for abortions by denying normal tax deductions for medical expenses if those medical expenses include an abortion, by denying normal tax credits for health insurance if that insurance covers abortion, and by denying use of tax- free money from an FSA or an HSA for an abortion. The intent of this bill is obvious: to end insurance coverage for all abortions, thereby making it nearly impossible for women to exercise their constitutional rights. Republicans should pay heed to the millions of women who marched to protect their rights this weekend and are watching how we vote today. Madam Speaker, there is obviously a difference of opinion in this country on the morality of abortion. I am appalled at the moral arrogance of the Republicans who would use political power to impose their views on the millions of women who disagree with them and want to make their own decisions. If Saturday's protests are any indication, the women of America and the world are watching us. They are not going to stand silently by while Republicans in Congress and the White House take away their rights, their health care, their families, and their livelihoods. They sent this message loud and clear, but it seems my Republican colleagues have not heard it. Yesterday morning, President Trump signed an executive order reinstating the Global Gag Rule, which will deny thousands of women around the world access to reproductive health care, which will lead to a dramatic decline in maternal and infant health around the world. Today, Republicans are bringing up a bill that will deny women the right to access comprehensive reproductive health care, a right protected by the Constitution. The right of a woman to decide whether to become pregnant, to decide to continue her pregnancy, or to make the decision to terminate her pregnancy is protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has determined that neither Congress nor a state may place an ``undue burden'' on that right. Denial of Medicaid or other government funding that would be available for other medical procedures should be considered an ``undue burden.'' For decades, Congress has imposed the Hyde Amendment on every appropriations bill. This language disproportionately impacts poor women and women of color, effectively denying them their constitutional right to access abortion. Yet today, Republicans want to make that language permanent. As unjust and despicable as the Hyde Amendment is, this bill goes beyond it. For the first time, Republicans are restricting the right of women to use their own money to pay for abortions. This bill will deny normal tax deductions for medical expenses if those expenses include abortion, normal tax credits for health insurance if that insurance includes abortion, and denying the ability to use tax-free money from an FSA or HSA for an abortion. The bill does include an exception in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. You may ask, how the IRS will know a woman's reason for getting an abortion. Well, under this bill, women will have to prove they are a victim of rape or incest or will have to provide detailed medical records to determine just how at risk their life was. Women will not only have to suffer the trauma of a sexual assault or the loss of a pregnancy because of life-threatening complications, they will now also have to face an IRS inquisition to get their own money back. So much for Republicans' pledge to get ``big government'' out of people's lives. The intent of this bill is obvious: to end insurance coverage for all abortions thereby making it nearly impossible for women to exercise their constitutional rights. Republicans are clearly out of step with the millions of women who marched to protect their rights this weekend. Those women, and the millions more who stand with them, are watching and ready to fight back. I am proud to vote against this bill and to join their fight.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, repeal of the Affordable Care Act will be a disaster for the American public. It will send America back to the days when people went bankrupt trying to pay medical bills, and seniors on Medicare spent $3,000 on prescription drugs alone. Adding insult to a very serious injury, the bill before us would defund Planned Parenthood because of debunked accusations. Republicans are asking us to pass legislation that will punish an invaluable organization without any evidence of due process because they don't agree with it. This bill smacks of an unconstitutional bill of attainder. If we do pass this bill, we will leave millions of women with no access to health care. Republicans know that community health centers and Medicaid networks do not include enough providers, particularly OB/ GYNs, to take on all of Planned Parenthood's patients. By voting to defund Planned Parenthood today, we will be leaving 2.7 million women and men with no access to reproductive health care. What a statement for the Republicans to make as their first major piece of legislation. They are saying to the American people, and to women in particular: Republicans don't care about your health or about your families. Republicans just care about politics. Well, my Democratic colleagues and I care about the health of the American people, about American jobs and about American women. That is why we will vote against this absurd budget resolution; that, and the ACA repeal. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. Mr. Chair, this budget resolution is primarily a vehicle to repeal the Affordable Care Act and to defund Planned Parenthood, steps the Republicans are taking without putting any plans in place to ensure that millions of men, women, and children will continue to have access to health care they need. They are proposing to let Americans get sick, even die, to score cheap political points. Repeal of the Affordable Care Act will be a disaster for the American public. In New York State alone, it will result in 2.7 million people losing health insurance and will create a $3 billion hole in the state budget. It will also result in the loss of thousands of health care jobs across the state. Republicans will send America back to the days when people went bankrupt trying to pay medical bills. It will mean that people with private insurance--from their employers or the individual market--will have their insurance cancelled for pre-existing conditions. It will mean that people once again will be subject to annual or lifetime limits--in other words, if you get an expensive illness, a heart attack or cancer, your insurance will run out just when you need it the most. And people on Medicare will have to pay an average of $3,000 a year for prescription drugs. Adding insult to very serious injury, this bill would defund Planned Parenthood because of debunked accusations. If members have real evidence that Planned Parenthood broke the law, they should send it to federal law enforcement agencies. Instead, they are asking us to pass legislation that will punish an invaluable organization without any evidence or due process because they don't agree with them. My colleagues who love to cloak themselves in the Constitution should know Congress is not the law enforcement body this bill asks us to be--it smacks of a clearly unconstitutional bill of attainder. If we do pass this bill, we will leave millions of women with no access to health care. Republicans may claim that women can go elsewhere for the services provided by Planned Parenthood--they've even gone so far as to provide additional funding for Community Health Centers to fill the gaps they clearly know this bill will leave behind. But did they check to see if the existing Community Health Centers or Medicaid networks can fill these gaps? Did they ask HHS to confirm that Community Health Centers even employ enough OB/GYNs and other specialists to actually take on the patients currently treated by Planned Parenthood? Of course not. Republicans know HHS would never be able to make that determination. More than half of Planned Parenthood patients rely on Medicaid. Most states do not have enough Medicaid providers, particularly specialists like OB/GYNs, to absorb Planned Parenthood's patients. By voting to defund Planned Parenthood today, you are leaving 2.7 million women, men, and families with no access to health care. Republicans are leaving women to suffer with no access to prenatal care, condemning seniors to undiagnosed cancers, and leaving children to suffer with asthma and other chronic illnesses all to make a political statement. And what a statement for Republicans to make as their first major piece of legislation. They are saying to the American people, and women in particular: Republicans don't care about your health. Republicans don't care about your families. Republicans just care about politics. Well, my Democratic colleagues and I care about the health of the American people. We care about American jobs. We care about American women. That's why we will vote against this absurd budget resolution. I urge my Republican colleagues to join us.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey for yielding, for hosting this Special Order, and for granting me this opportunity to speak. Since the first nomination was announced by President-elect Trump's transition team, phones in my office have been ringing off the hook; and not a day goes by when I do not hear from my neighbors, friends, and constituents of their angst, frustration, and discontent. I share their anger and dread--that feeling of being punched in the gut--as name after name has been released. Each nomination from President-elect Trump has put the fox in charge of the henhouse. We are not talking about simple differences in partisan ideology. We are talking about nominees who have devoted much of their professional lives to undermining the small-d democratic institutions that are the foundation of our country. This new administration is so extreme that we cannot, in any good faith, give this President-elect the traditional deference to name a cabinet that represents his governing philosophy because the appointments show it to be a philosophy that seeks to corrupt, if not fully destroy, our institutions, traditions, and values. Senator Jeff Sessions, the nominee for Attorney General, was considered too racist to serve on the Federal bench by a Republican Senate, much less to head the Justice Department, and is someone who has so little respect for women's rights he voted against the Violence Against Women Act and called Roe v. Wade a colossal mistake. Ben Carson, the nominee for HUD Secretary, said today in his confirmation hearing that he was against protecting LGBT Americans from housing discrimination because protecting them from housing discrimination would be granting them extra rights, refusing to recognize that LGBT Americans deserve equal rights. Tom Price, the nominee for HHS Secretary, wants to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid as we know them, repeal the Affordable Care Act without a second thought for the millions of Americans who would lose coverage or would be subject to limits on preexisting conditions and would be subject to lifetime and annual limits, and has so little understanding of women's health that he insisted that not a single woman would lose access to contraception if contraception coverage were eliminated. Betsy DeVos, the nominee for Education Secretary, advocated for years to move taxpayer dollars away from public schools and towards for- profit, private schools that would leave behind low-income students, minority students, and children with disabilities. Scott Pruitt, the nominee for EPA administrator, does not believe in climate change and is so linked to the fossil fuel industry that he has sued the EPA a dozen times to block environmental regulations designed to protect us from the effects of climate change. The list goes on and on, each more horrifying than the one before. These are not the values the majority of Americans voted for in November, and I don't just mean because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million. I cannot imagine that the voters who wanted to drain the swamp and voted for Mr. Trump for that purpose and have the needs of working people represented are thrilled to see him name the wealthiest cabinet--with the greatest collection of Wall Street insiders--in American history. The fact is, President-elect Trump and the Republican Party do not have any mandate from the people to carry out the dystopian horror show this cabinet presents. Rather than rubber stamping the most extreme cabinet I have seen in my 25 years in Washington, the Senate should reject these extreme nominees, and then both Houses should do their constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the administration. I am ready to do that work. Over a month ago, along with my Democratic Judiciary Committee colleagues, I sent a letter to Chairman Goodlatte asking him to hold hearings on the conflict of interest and ethics provisions that apply to the President of the United States. I have not heard a response. Every Democrat in this House signed on to the Protect Our Democracy Act, legislation to create an independent, bipartisan-appointed commission to investigate Russian hacking in the 2016 election and to make recommendations to ensure nothing like that happens again. It is interesting that not a single House Republican has joined us. I join my constituents and millions of Americans in wanting to know why Republicans are working so hard to protect President-elect Trump from having to answer questions about Russian influence in this election. Why are Republicans working so hard to support President- elect Trump's extreme and out-of-touch cabinet? Why aren't Republicans asking the same questions about how President-elect Trump will avoid conflicts of interest? I have served in this body for nearly 25 years. I have seen this body take on the big questions of our time--the role of government in the lives of everyday Americans, the threat of terrorism in the city I call home and around the country, the right of every American to marry whomever they love, the right of every American to vote free of intimidation, and the right of every American to make their own healthcare choices. I have seen us come through those battles bruised and battered but stronger. That is why I refuse to despair. I refuse to put my head down and hide. I refuse to give up on America. I will stand here and fight for the country we all believe in. I will do everything in my power to represent the strong progressive values of the men and women who sent me here. I will work with my colleagues here in the House and the Senate to stand united against any effort to undermine the rights we have fought so hard to achieve, whether it comes from the other end of the world or the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. But if there is to be any check on this administration, congressional Republicans will need to join in that fight, and it starts with rejecting the shameful slate of nominees.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Gina Quattrochi, a champion for HIV/AIDS healthcare and housing, who passed away in December. In 1986, at the height of the AIDS crisis, Ms. Quattrochi was named to the board of the AIDS Resource Center and led negotiations to acquire a former hotel on Christopher St., in my district, which was renamed Bailey House. This hotel became the first group residence for people with AIDS in the country. At a time when HIV/AIDS was shrouded in fear and paranoia, Gina was fearless. She later served as CEO of Bailey House for 25 years. It was under Ms. Quattrochi's leadership that Bailey House grew from a small housing agency to a multimillion- dollar organization that provides a wide range of health and housing services to over 1,800 clients. In addition to Bailey House, Ms. Quattrochi was a board member of several HIV/AIDS advocacy organizations, including the National AIDS Housing Coalition, where she also served as president; the Harlem Hospital Community Advisory Board; the Ryan White Integration of Care committee; and iHealth NYS. In 2014, she was appointed to Governor Andrew Cuomo's task force to reduce new statewide HIV infections to just 750 per year by 2020. Ms. Quattrochi also fulfilled her longtime goal of extending the city's HIV/AIDS Services Administration, or HASA, services beyond just AIDS diagnoses to qualified people with HIV. Her lifetime of work transformed the conversation about how to help house, provide health care to, and feed people with HIV/AIDS. As a longtime supporter and advocate for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, or HOPWA, I am proud to have represented Gina and Bailey House for many years, but I am more proud to have called her a friend. She leaves behind an indelible legacy, she will be profoundly missed by the city of New York, the country, and the HIV/AIDS advocacy community. I can think of no greater tribute than the words of Emmy and Tony Award-winning author and AIDS activist Larry Kramer: ``She was the most noble of heroines. She fought not only for us, but for all of mankind.''

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would exempt from the bill any regulations that pertain to nuclear reactor safety. In other words, my amendment would allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the NRC to continue to issue rules under the current system, thereby making it easier to protect Americans from potential nuclear disaster. The underlying legislation, the REINS Act, would grind the gears of rulemaking to a halt by requiring all major rules to be affirmatively approved in advance by Congress. A regulation would be blocked from being implemented if even one Chamber declines to pass an approval resolution. The goal of this legislation, quite simply, is to stop the regulatory process in its tracks, regardless of the impact on public health and safety. One example that highlights the risks and dangers of this legislation is the subject of this amendment: Nuclear power. The world watched in horror when an earthquake and resulting tsunami devastated the area around Fukushima, Japan, a few years ago. That disaster then caused its own disaster--the meltdown of three reactors at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. The meltdown led to the release of radioactive isotopes, the creation of a 20-kilometer exclusion zone around the power plant, and the displacement, consequently, of 156,000 people. Just last month, seaborne radiation from Fukushima was even detected on the West Coast of the United States. The same year as the Fukushima meltdown, Virginia was struck by a relatively rare but strong earthquake, felt up and down the eastern seaboard. While the region was spared a similar disaster, the earthquake required a nuclear power plant near the epicenter to go offline as a precaution and served as a wake-up call that our nuclear reactors needed additional safety protocols. For me, this concern hits close to home. A nuclear power plant, Indian Point, which has suffered numerous malfunctions in recent years, lies just less than 40 miles away from my New York City district, about 30 miles away from the city. Twenty million people live within a 50- mile radius around the plant, the same radius used by the NRC as the basis for the evacuation zone recommended after the Fukushima disaster. Indian Point also sits near two earthquake fault lines and, according to the NRC, is the most likely nuclear power plant in the country to experience core damage because of an earthquake. Because of the catastrophes that can result from disasters, be they natural or manmade at nuclear power plants, prevention of meltdowns is absolutely vital. Since Fukushima, the NRC has issued new rules designed to upgrade power plants to withstand severe events like earthquakes, and to have enough backup power so as to avoid a meltdown for a significant length of time. The NRC must retain the ability to issue new regulations to safeguard the health and well-being of all Americans. However, this bill is intentionally designed so that new and important regulations, including those to prevent a nuclear power plant meltdown which could affect millions of American, will likely never be put in place, thwarted by either chamber of Congress. Congress delegates authority to executive agencies because we do not have the expertise or time to craft all technical regulations ourselves. We should defer to the engineers and scientists at the NRC who determine, after careful study, that a particular regulation is critical to our safety and to the safe operation of a nuclear power plant. This bill, however, would all too easily allow Members of Congress to substitute their own judgment or, most likely, the wishes of a narrow group of special interests. This week we began a new Congress. Later this month we will have a new administration, all controlled by Republicans. Between this bill and the Midnight Rules bill we passed yesterday, they have chosen to make their first order of business the dismantling and destruction of the regulatory process, regardless of the impact on public health and safety. This gives us a good idea of the priorities we should expect to see in the next 2 years. The least we can do is to try to ensure that the antiregulatory agenda of the Republicans does not have devastating consequences such as a nuclear meltdown. I urge my colleagues to support the Nadler amendment to exempt nuclear safety regulations from the onerous requirements of the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, nuclear meltdowns are a tremendous danger to the life and safety of millions of Americans. The Congressional Review Act provides if the NRC makes such a regulation, Congress can say no. That is appropriate. But to say Congress has to approve any regulation in advance, when there may be thousands of regulations or hundreds of regulations from different agencies, they may not get to it. We may not have time to study it, and lives are at stake. It does not make sense. That is why this amendment at least cuts out nuclear meltdown regulations, nuclear safety regulations, to say Congress can veto them if they don't agree. But the agency should be able to promulgate it in the absence of congressional veto. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Given how little we worked last year, this would mean that any regulation issued by the Obama administration, stretching back to June 13, 2016, could be canceled in one sweeping motion, with hardly any consideration given to the merits of any individual regulation. Article II of the Constitution provides that a President shall serve a 4-year term. But the Republicans seem to believe that this doesn't apply to President Obama. Somehow, when he was reelected by broad majority in 2012, he was given only a 3-year term. The Senate refused to consider a Supreme Court nominee and, under this bill, his entire regulatory agenda for the last 6 months could be undone in an instant. While I am sympathetic to the need for an incoming administration to review regulations issued in the closing days of an outgoing administration, this bill goes much further and allows for a rushed and partisan process that could undermine critical health and safety regulations. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this irresponsible and dangerous legislation.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 21, the Midnight Rules Relief Act. This irresponsible legislation would enable Congress to wipe out hundreds, or even thousands, of regulations enacted during the final year of the President's term in office, in one fell swoop, with little examination, no deliberation, and little regard to their impact on public health or safety. Members from both sides of the aisle have expressed concern in recent years over rules adopted during a Presidential transition period-- typically, the last 60 to 90 days of the President's term. But this legislation differs greatly from previous legislation that I and others have introduced in the past to deal with this problem. For example, the Midnight Rule Act, which I introduced in the 110th and 111th Congresses, would have merely delayed the implementation of rules submitted to Congress within the final 90 days of a President's term, with appropriate exceptions for imminent threat to health and safety, enforcement of criminal laws, implementation of an international trade agreement, and national security. This proposal was a response to concerns with last-minute rulemaking under the George W. Bush administration, which was roundly criticized at the time for allowing insufficient time for public comment, ignoring public comments, and otherwise departing from accepted rulemaking practices. My bill would have given an incoming President 90 days to determine if any rules issued should not go forward. This measure would have allowed legitimate regulatory reform to proceed on schedule while putting the power to review and overturn controversial new rules into the hands of the newly elected administration. The legislation before us today, however, goes much further and creates a process to simply erase the last months of an outgoing administration's regulatory agenda. Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress can overturn a regulation issued by the executive branch through a disapproval resolution that must be signed by the President. This bill would allow Congress to package these disapproval resolutions together and eliminate dozens, hundreds, or even thousands, of regulations all at once, with little debate over the merits of any individual rule. Under the CRA, agencies would be prevented from proposing similar rules ever again, absent explicit congressional authorization. You would have a rule terminated with no debate because it is one of a thousand rules done away with in one resolution. You can't even look at it again. The Republican majority has waged an all-out assault on the regulatory process, trying to add hurdle after hurdle on the ability to issue regulations that protect public health and safety. Not content to grind the gears of rulemaking to a halt, they now want to eliminate wholesale those regulations that have gone through the exhaustive rulemaking process--a process that often takes many years to complete. Even more concerning, this bill would apply to rules issued in the last 60 legislative days of a President's term. Not calendar days, but legislative days.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6130, the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act. This legislation will help restore artwork and heritage stolen by the Nazis during the Holocaust to the rightful owners or heirs. I was proud to join Chairman Goodlatte in introducing this bill, and I appreciate his efforts in moving it forward. In addition to their crimes of genocide and mass murder, the Nazis engaged in comprehensive, systemic theft of art and property mostly, but not entirely, from Jews all across Europe. The scope of their theft was massive, and the damaging effects remain with us today, with victims still seeking justice and some form of compensation. Nearly 20 years ago, in 1998, the United States brought together 44 nations to produce a set of principles on Nazi confiscated art. They agreed that steps should be taken expeditiously to achieve a just and fair solution to the outstanding claims. In 2009, the United States joined 45 other nations in Prague to issue what was known as the Terezin Declaration, which reaffirmed these principles. Unfortunately, today, 71 years after the defeat of the Nazis and the liberation of Europe, many American victims are still unable to pursue their claims in court because of restrictive statutes of limitations in the States. These laws generally require a claimant to bring a case within a limited number of years from when the loss occurred or should have been discovered; but in many instances, the information required to file a claim regarding artwork stolen by the Nazis was not brought to light until many years later, forcing courts to dismiss cases before they could be judged on the merits. In some cases, the law would have required a claim to be brought even before World War II ended. This is obviously unjust. Some States have attempted to make an exception to their statutes of limitations to accommodate these claims, but such efforts have been ruled unconstitutional, as an infringement on the Federal Government's exclusive authority over foreign affairs. Federal legislation, therefore, is needed to bring justice to this area. This bill would set a uniform 6-year Federal statute of limitations for the claims of Nazi-confiscated art from the time that the identity and location of the artwork and the ownership interests of the claimant are actually discovered. It would also restore the claims of those claimants whose cases were dismissed previously because of a statute of limitations. This bill would finally ensure that the rightful owners and their decedents can have their claims properly adjudicated. I thank Ronald Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress, for his determined efforts to see that this issue is resolved; and Chairman Goodlatte for working with me and our colleagues to bring this legislation forward. While no legislation or act of contrition will ever reverse the many horrors committed by the Nazis, one thing we can do is establish a fair judicial process so that some victims can achieve some small measure of justice. Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for this legislation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Madam Speaker, from start to finish, this select panel has abused congressional power in order to intimidate and threaten private people and entities engaged in legal businesses in constitutionally protected health care. Republicans on the select panel have now spent $1.5 million on this so-called investigation. What do they have to show the American people for spending their hard-earned tax dollars? They have not presented any evidence that any entity broke the law surrounding fetal tissue donation or research. They have not presented any evidence that any entity or physician engaged in the horrifying behavior of which Republicans accuse them. We have heard today on this floor, as we have repeatedly from the select panel, the oft-proven lies that Planned Parenthood sold fetal tissue for profit. We have heard the lie that the clearly doctored and disproven videotapes bore some relationship to reality. We have heard today on this floor, as we have repeatedly from the select panel, the oft disproved lies that Planned Parenthood sold fetal tissue for profit. We have heard the lie that the clearly doctored and disproved videotapes bore some relationship to reality. We have heard the disproved lie that StemExpress procured fetal tissue not for lifesaving medical research, but for profit. The Republicans have wasted countless hours and millions of dollars running in circles after evidence that doesn't exist. They have insisted over and over again that entities name names, with no promise or plan to protect those individuals; and when asked to explain why they needed names, they simply refused to answer. When Republicans on the panel did get names, they released some of them publicly, even though they knew that doing so would expose the doctors, researchers, and other private individuals to harassment, threats, and even murder. The Republicans on the panel have repeatedly made baseless accusations of wrongdoing, with no concern for the consequences. They have had a chilling effect on lifesaving medical research through their intimidation tactics. They have flown in the face of congressional rules and abused congressional power to meet their own blatantly partisan ends. And now the Republicans on the select panel have the audacity to ask for more taxpayer money to fund this witch hunt. In words once addressed to the last Member of Congress to so clearly violate congressional authority, Senator Joseph McCarthy, I ask my Republican colleagues: ``At long last, have you no sense of decency?'' I call on all of my colleagues today to remember their decency. This grotesque and murderous panel should have been shut down long ago. Vote against the previous question, vote against this absurd funding bill, and stand up for the American taxpayer and for the dignity of this institution.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking Peter King and Bob Goodlatte for their role in bringing this bill to the floor as the sponsor and committee chairman. I rise in strong support of overriding the President's veto of JASTA. JASTA is a carefully crafted, narrow bill that would hold accountable foreign governments that knowingly provide substantial assistance to a designated foreign terrorist organization that launches an attack in the United States. Despite the overblown rhetoric of some critics of this bill, JASTA will not pose a threat to American military personnel or diplomats. They would be absolutely protected if another country passed legislation mirroring this bill because JASTA applies only to governments. To the extent that a foreign government might pass broader legislation that would make American personnel subject to liability, that country would not be reciprocating. It would be engaging in a transparent and unjustifiable act of aggression. The economic, diplomatic, and military strength of the United States makes such action unlikely, and any rogue state inclined to target U.S. interests can already do so. We must not hold justice for the 9/11 families hostage to imagined fears. Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago, on September 11, we suffered the most deadly terrorist attack on our soil in this Nation's history. My district in New York was the epicenter of this attack, but its effects were felt across the country, including, of course, at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania. We all have an interest in ensuring that the 9/11 victims and their families can bring to justice anyone who was responsible for this vicious attack. JASTA simply reinstates what was understood to be the law for 30 years; that foreign states, not individuals, not soldiers, foreign states, may be brought to justice for aiding and abetting acts of international terrorism that occur on American soil, whether or not the conduct that facilitated the attack occurred in the United States. Some courts have recently held that if a foreign government agent hands over a check to al Qaeda in a cafe in New York to fund a terrorist attack in the United States, that government can be sued in an American court. But if that same foreign agent funds the same attack by handing over the same check in a cafe in Geneva, the government is immune from suit. That makes no sense, and it flies in the face of what had been settled law for many years. Longstanding U.S. law, under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, provides jurisdiction to sue foreign states that cause a tortious injury on American soil. That is current law. This is the international norm, and it has never prompted retaliatory conduct by other nations. This bill simply clarifies that if a foreign state murders thousands of Americans on American soil or provides substantial assistance to a designated terrorist group that murders thousands of Americans on American soil, that government cannot hide from justice merely because its actions occurred abroad. This bill does not target any particular country or prejudge the merits of any particular case. Any government brought before a U.S. court will have every defense available to it, as well as extensive protections and government privileges during discovery to protect against disclosure of its sensitive information. What it will not be able to do is hide behind erroneous court decisions and jurisdictional loopholes to avoid the legal process altogether. We have heard a parade of horribles stemming from a hypothetical fear that other nations would use JASTA as an excuse to target American citizens. Again, if a foreign government passes legislation that mirrors JASTA, American citizens would still be absolutely protected because JASTA applies only to governments. A foreign government is highly unlikely to pass legislation that goes beyond JASTA. If a rogue state does, in fact, authorize suits against American personnel abroad, we have a well- established process for defending such actions. According to the Office of Foreign Litigation at the Department of Justice, ``at any given time, foreign lawyers under the direct supervision, represent the United States in approximately 1,000 lawsuits pending in the courts of over 100 countries.'' This is not a new issue for the United States, and we are well equipped to deal with any consequences. We are warned that Saudi Arabia will be very angry if we approve this bill, that the Saudis may retaliate against the United States, may perhaps withdraw some investments. History shows that the Saudis will do what is in their interests. They need American support and American arms in the volatile Middle East where they fear and fight Iran and its proxies. They are not going to prefer their emotions to their interests and act against the United States. If the Saudi Government was not complicit in the attack on 9/11, the plaintiffs will fail to prove such complicity in an American court. Justice will have been served, and the Saudis will be vindicated after years of suspicion. But if it is proven in an American court that the Saudi Government was complicit in the attacks on 9/11, justice will have been served and we--not the Saudis--will have justification to be very angry. Mr. Speaker, this bill was carefully negotiated over more than 6 years. It passed the House and Senate unanimously, and earlier today, the Senate voted 97-1 to override the President's veto. All that stands in the way of justice for the 9/11 victims and their families is a vote in this House. I urge my colleagues to stand with them and to override the veto.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, whatever the gentleman may say, the fact is this bill, since it deals only with earnings earned completely within a State, represents a major assault on the sovereignty of the States. It is one thing to say that interstate commerce must be regulated, that the State's ability to extend its tax out, its tax through a company without much nexus to the State that sells into the State can be regulated, but that is not this. What this says is: We are going to limit the State's ability to tax economic activity that occurs entirely within the State. Now, one might argue that if someone only spends a couple days in the State, you shouldn't tax that because it will discourage doing business in the State; and maybe if I were still a member of the State legislature, maybe I would argue that. But that is an argument for the State legislature. It is not an argument for Congress. That is an argument on the economic merits of the State's exercise of its own tax powers and its own judgment within its own borders. For Congress to step in and say: New York must forgo $125 million in revenue or some other State must forgo $55 million or maybe $22.38 entirely based on economic activity within that State is, frankly, none of our business. Today we talk about the burden that this imposes. Yes, a State might be wise to exempt small amounts of income so you don't need 50 W-2s to someone who earns a total of $50,000, but for someone who earns $50 million and may earn $20 million in a couple of days in a State, that State ought to be able to tax it, and it ought to be up to the economic and political judgment of that State as to how, in the interests of economic intelligence, to limit its exercise of its taxing power so as not to discourage business. That is a State's decision. We hear a lot of rhetoric about States' rights and sovereignty and yielding power to the States on the floor, but here is an example going much farther than anything else I have seen, frankly, of the Federal Government stepping in and saying to a State: You may not exercise your taxing power within your State when it has nothing to do with another State. If someone comes into the State and earns $50 million in 10 days or 3 weeks or 4\1/2\ weeks, why shouldn't that State be able to tax it if it wishes to? By what right does Congress tell it that it can't? By what right does Congress tell New York: You must forgo $100 to $125 million in revenue? Even the efficiency argument doesn't make much sense with today's computers and computer ability. So I think that this is an invasion of States' rights. It is an invasion of the core ability of the State to tax within its own borders. It is an invasion of--it is not a theft--it is a deprivation, my own State is about $125 million, which our taxpayers will have to make up, and it is wrong for that reason. Now, I understand why ALEC might support this bill. ALEC wants government to do nothing, wants the Federal Government not to tax, the State governments not to tax, and have as little power as possible. That is a view, but it is not a view that justifies the Federal Government telling a State and telling the States' voters that, whether they like it or not, they shouldn't tax economic activity within that State, they should come up with the money some other way or they should have less State services. That is for the States' taxpayers, the States' voters to decide. This bill is an imposition on the States. It is an imposition on the people of the States. It is wrong. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2315. This bill represents a major assault on the sovereignty of the States, and does particular damage to my home State of New York, depriving it of more than $100 million of its own tax revenue. The Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act would prohibit States from collecting income tax from an individual unless the person works more than 30 days in that State in a calendar year. Simplifying and harmonizing the rules on tax collection across the country is a worthy goal, but this bill would block States from setting their own tax policy within their own borders. That is both highly questionable, as a matter of constitutional law, and deeply troubling, as a matter of policy. The power to tax is a key index of sovereignty, yet this legislation tells States they may not tax activity solely within their borders except as prescribed in the bill. I find this constitutionally dubious. Although I take a broad view generally of the Commerce Clause, I do not think it extends to a State's ability to tax a person doing business within its own borders. Setting aside that concern, however, this bill would do great harm to a number of States, most especially to New York. According to some estimates, New York State could lose up to $125 million annually if this bill were enacted. New York City's unique location as the center of commerce for the Nation as well as its physical proximity to two other States means that many individuals go there throughout the year for business purposes. But if you work fewer than 30 days, which is up to six 5-day workweeks, this bill would strip New York of its right to tax any of your business activity within its borders. That is both grossly unfair and extremely costly. While a de minimis exception might make sense, I hardly think that 6 weeks and $125 million is de minimis. This bill comes at a time when Congress is intent on shifting more and more responsibilities to the States. As States continue to struggle with budgets that are stretched ever thinner, we should not further limit their authority to tax and deprive them of yet more revenue. The fiscal impact of this bill on certain States may be quite minimal but, on others like New York, it would be catastrophic. If we deprive a State of $125 million each year, vital services like education, law enforcement, and health care could all be on the chopping block. During consideration of H.R. 2315 in the Judiciary Committee, I offered two amendments that would have mitigated its impact. The first would have reduced the bill's 30-day threshold to a more reasonable 14 days, which is still almost 3 weeks of work without being subject to taxation. The other would have added highly paid individuals to the bill's list of exemptions, which would help avoid loopholes that could allow wealthy people to escape millions of dollars of taxation. Had my amendments been accepted, the expected impact on New York would have been reduced from more than $100 million to roughly $20 million a year. While still causing a significant drain on resources, these amendments would have gone a long way toward making the bill fairer, while still achieving its underlying goals. Unfortunately, they were defeated and, therefore, I must oppose the bill. When the gentleman speaks of a company with 50 W-2 forms for one employee, if those W-2 forms total a few million dollars, that is not very burdensome. If they are for $50,000, I understand the point. My amendment would have taken care of that. I should note that this is not just about New York and that several other States would be similarly affected by this legislation. In addition, the bill is opposed by a broad coalition of labor and tax organizations, including the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, SEIU, the International Union of Police Associations, the Federation of Tax Administrators, the Multistate Tax Commission, and many others. We should not be depriving States of the ability to tax within their own borders as we are transferring more functions to the States and cutting back on Federal spending. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this unfair and misguided legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker how much time do I have remaining?