Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing that the people of Guantanamo are the worst of the worst, that they are very dangerous, and that their release would pose a threat to the United States. Some are, it is true. Some are probably the worst of the worst, but some aren't. Some are people who were picked up by mistake. Some are people who were sold for a bounty. If you go into a wild place like Afghanistan and you let the word out that we will pay $5,000 for a terrorist and the McCoys are fighting the Hatfields, the McCoys will turn in a Hatfield and say that he is a terrorist. Some of that happened. It is our job not to keep everybody in jail for life but to figure out who is who: who is the worst of the worst; who is innocent; who is there because of a mistake. Release those who are innocent; release those who do not pose a threat; and release those who didn't do anything. Simply getting up and repeating time after time on this floor that the people there are the worst of the worst doesn't make it true. What kind of a system of justice or anything else is it where you say: We are going to hold forever, with no trial, people who we have already determined to pose no threat to the United States, who we have already determined have done nothing wrong, but we are going to hold them in jail forever because some of them are bad people--no trial, no proceeding, hold them in jail forever? By what right would we do that? How do we appear to all the countries and to all the people that we are trying to appeal to, saying our way is the rule of law, go with our way, don't go with the Taliban, we are fair to people, they are not, and then we have people in jail forever with no hope of release, with no trial, no proceeding, nothing? That is what this bill is. This bill is un-American in the extreme. It is counterproductive because it gives the Taliban and everybody else the propaganda against us that we are a bunch of hypocrites, which we are if we pass bills like this, and we shouldn't pass it.

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill that would block all transfers out of Guantanamo for the remainder of the year or until the end of the President's current term. This bill would, for the first time ever, impose a complete ban on all transfers out of Guantanamo. Not only would the bill block all transfers of Guantanamo detainees to the United States, even for purposes of prosecution in Federal court, but it would also ban the resettlement or repatriation of detainees cleared by the United States for transfer to foreign countries. The bill would be effective until the earlier of January 21, 2017, or the effective date of the next National Defense Authorization Act. To quote the ACLU: ``This bill violates the bedrock constitutional prohibition on Congress passing any legislation that violates the Constitution's Bill of Attainder Clause.'' In effect, it finds all the inmates at Guantanamo guilty of something unspecified, without trial, and sentences them to life without parole. That is what this bill does, along with the other series of bills. But by saying you can't transfer anybody anywhere, you are saying they must remain there indefinitely whether they have been tried or not, whether they have been found guilty or not, whether our own experts think they are a threat to the United States or not. Even if we find that someone is factually not guilty of any act of terrorism or anything else and we have no right to hold them, we still cannot release them. By what right do we claim such a power? Since when is it okay for Members of Congress to put people in jail and keep them there who are not guilty of anything? How can an American legislative body pass a provision that says we will hold someone in jail forever not only without trial, but even if we have determined that he is innocent of everything? That is the basic argument here. This bill, the idea that we will keep people in jail forever without their having been found guilty of anything, without their having been tried, it makes a mockery of the American Constitution. It makes a mockery of all our pretenses to stand for liberty. It makes a mockery of habeas corpus. This would even say that if someone were granted a writ of habeas corpus, he could not be released even if a Court granted him a writ of habeas corpus. Plainly unconstitutional, not to mention immoral. I will say one other thing on a completely different level. This expires either when we pass the next NDAA or when the next President takes office. It says, in effect, this President is not really our President, for all practical purposes, for every practical purpose. He was elected by the American people 4 years ago, but we don't like him, so we are going to say he can't do certain things that his successor can do. We are going to put something in writing only for this President. Now, if this said this expires when the next NDAA is passed or it expires a year from now or whenever, that would be one thing. But this says the NDAA or when the next President takes office. In other words, very much like the Senate is doing with Judge Garland. We don't trust the President. Maybe we don't. That is a political decision, but it is not a right decision. We don't trust the President to act as President. We repudiate the judgment the American people made in the last election. We say that, for certain purposes, his term has expired and we will wait for the next President. That also is pernicious and against our constitutional values. On every level, this bill is probably unconstitutional and certainly immoral, and I oppose it.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of JASTA. I am proud to be the lead Democratic sponsor of this bill, alongside my friend from New York (Mr. King), and I appreciate all of his hard work on this legislation. On Sunday, we will observe the 15th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, when thousands of Americans were brutally murdered in my district in New York, as well as at the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. JASTA would help ensure that those responsible for aiding and abetting those attacks are held accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, because of certain court decisions misinterpreting the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the Anti-Terrorism Act, the 9/11 victims and their families have been unable to pursue their claims in court against some of the parties they believe were responsible for funding the attacks. JASTA simply reinstates what was understood to be the law for 30 years, that 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. Think of it this way: some courts have held that if a foreign government agent hands over a $1 million check to al Qaeda in a cafe in New York in order 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 $1 million check in a cafe in Geneva, his government should be immune from liability. That makes no sense, and it flies in the face of what had been settled law for many years. We must correct these erroneous court decisions so that anyone who facilitates a terrorist attack on our people can be brought to justice. Let me be clear. This legislation does not prejudge the merits of any particular case. It simply ensures that the 9/11 families, or anyone who may face the same situation, can plead their case in court. Some critics of this bill have argued that if we pass it, other nations may retaliate by enacting similar laws that could subject Americans, or the United States itself, to liability in those countries. I find this argument unpersuasive. The United States does not engage in international terrorist activity and would not face any legal jeopardy if a law like JASTA were enacted anywhere else. Furthermore, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and its well- established tort exception, have been the law for 40 years. In that time, we simply have not seen the parade of horribles that some critics imagine would happen if this bill were to become law. We cannot allow threats from a country that fears being held to account for its actions, and may threaten retaliation of some sort, to deny victims of terrorist attacks their day in court. Moreover, this legislation contains a reasonable provision allowing for a stay of court proceedings if the President is engaging in good faith negotiations to resolve the claim through diplomatic channels. We need not fear retaliation from another country. This is not the 1790s. The United States is a major power and can hold our own. JASTA is a narrow bill that has been carefully negotiated over the last 6 years, and which passed the Senate unanimously in May. It would provide clarity to the courts, and justice to the victims of 9/11, and it deserves swift passage today. I urge all my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) control the balance of the time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the so- called Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act. The Republican majority likes to put creative names on their legislation, but what they call slush funds are really voluntary settlements between the government and corporate wrongdoers. These settlements sometimes include payments to third parties to address the generalized harms caused by corporate bad actors. But this bill would prohibit any payments to a third party unless the funds would be used to help only the people directly harmed by the defendants, not those who may have been harmed on a broader level by their actions. This is unnecessarily narrow and restrictive when trying to address the harm inflicted by corporate wrongdoers. Furthermore, the bill would restrict the flexibility of the government to resolve claims and make it harder to assist broad categories of people who are hurt by corporate malfeasance. For example, in the wake of the mortgage foreclosure crisis, the Department of Justice sued several big banks responsible for egregious misconduct that threw millions of people out of their homes and put millions more in peril, while the banks reaped massive profits. The banks agreed to resolve their claims by paying record-setting fines to the government in recognition of the tremendous damage they had caused. Under well- established legal authority, some of these settlements also included payments to certain community organizations responsible for assisting homeowners and the communities devastated by the foreclosure crisis caused by the banks. These payments have had a dramatic effect. In New York State, thanks to the consumer relief funds from these settlements, more than 60,000 people have received housing counseling and legal services free of charge over the last 4 years. Almost one-third of these homeowners have consequently received a mortgage modification or have one pending. Other funds have gone to support community development institutions like land banks, which are nonprofit organizations formed by local and county governments. These land banks help cities address vacant and abandoned properties known as zombie homes, zombie homes that were created by the foreclosure crisis caused by the malfeasance of the big banks. Land banks acquire these properties, secure them, and rehabilitate them for resale as affordable housing, thereby increasing the tax rolls, reducing crime, and preserving property values for neighboring homeowners and undoing some of the damage done by the malfeasance of the banks. In just the last 3 years, land banks in New York have acquired more than 1,300 vacant and abandoned properties. Mr. Chairman, homeowners and cities are still struggling with the aftermath of the foreclosure crisis, and the third-party donations included in legal settlements have proven vital in helping those directly affected and those secondarily harmed by the banks' actions. These payments were mutually agreed-upon terms in a legal settlement, but Republicans call them slush funds. They went to nationally recognized community organizations or locally important community organizations doing important work to help homeowners in crisis, in crisis because of the actions by the malefactor banks. The majority sneers and calls these organizations activist groups. The majority was so outraged by these payments that they launched a burdensome investigation that yielded not a single shred of evidence of any wrongdoing by anyone. I don't know what the majority calls that, but I call it a waste of time. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is a waste of time, too, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mathilde Freund on her 100th birthday. Mathilde Freund was born in Vienna, Austria in 1916. She married her husband in 1937. Within a few months, Hitler's army entered Vienna, Austria and by August of 1938, Mathilde, her husband, her parents, and all her able bodied relatives quickly fled to Paris, France where they again had to suddenly flee, this time to Lyon, France. Once there, the men in her family all volunteered to fight with the French army in Northern Africa. By 1943 they were back in Lyon, where her husband was eventually captured and deported to Buchenwald where he died days before liberation. Her only brother, Alfred, was taken hostage on August 18, 1944 in Lyon, and then shot along with more than 100 other men at the Lyon Airport less than a week later. In 1952, Mathilde came to New York with her mother and daughter where she settled on the Upper West Side. Embracing New York, and her new life in the United States, Mathilde earned several degrees and worked for many years as a medical social worker at the Beth Israel Cancer Detection Center and later at the French Hospital until it closed in 1977, when she retired. She lost her own daughter to breast cancer a little over 10 years ago, but is very blessed to have an extremely loving grandson and five great grandchildren. Mathilde has never forgotten those difficult years between 1938 to 1945, somehow surviving in the forest and stables surrounding Lyon, and she is dedicated to telling her story to grade school and university students in New York City. She continues to live life to the fullest as she takes classes at Fordham University, and she loves to go to the theater, museums and concerts. Mathilde has been a vendor at the Upper West Side Green Flea (now known as Grand Bazaar NY) market since it was opened to non-PTA vendors more than 30 years ago. Grand Bazaar NY is run by the PTA of four on- site schools which benefit directly from the revenue. In recognition of her long running service, this Upper West Side market will name Sunday, July 31, 2016 in her honor. Mathilde Freund will turn 100 years old on August 15, 2016, and I wish her a very happy birthday.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has decided to adjourn the House and take a 7-week vacation without dealing with the three crises that are pressing upon us now: The epidemic of gun violence, a uniquely American crisis: every year, about 146 people die of gun violence in the United Kingdom, 71 in Denmark, 140 in Portugal, 30 in Japan--and 33,000 in the United States; The Zika health crisis, which is about to give us thousands of terribly disabled babies; and The Flint, Michigan, crisis, whose water was poisoned by the decision of the Governor's appointee. We should not leave here without providing funds for Zika, funds without offsets and without irrelevant poison pills; we should at least enact a no fly, no buy bill and universal background checks to start dealing with the gun violence epidemic; and we should get Flint, Michigan, some drinkable water. Let the majority deal with these three crises, then take a 6-week vacation if they want. But don't sentence thousands of Americans to die while you go off on vacation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I oppose this closed rule on an obnoxious bill. This bill is just another attempt in a long line of Republican attempts to interfere with women's health choices. This bill is part of a disturbing national trend. Some legislators at the Federal, State, and local level are attempting to insert religious exemptions into antidiscrimination and pro-women's health laws with which they do not agree. Rather than trying a frontal assault on the laws themselves--which they know they would lose--they seek instead to use the premise of religion to allow further discrimination against women. We must not let them succeed. Let's be clear what this is really all about. The Republicans are not happy with the Supreme Court's pro-choice decisions. They are not happy with the Affordable Care Act, which provides contraceptive coverage to millions of women with no out-of-pocket costs. But try as they may, they cannot overturn Roe v. Wade and they cannot repeal ObamaCare. The American people won't let them do that. So now they are trying to bring religion into the discussion and dare us to oppose what they call basic First Amendment principles about freedom of religion. Well, guess what: that is not going to work either. We see their bias, we see their intent, and we will not let them enshrine discrimination into Federal law. We won't let you punish women just because you are not pro-choice. That is not going to happen. Let's be honest. This is not about religion; it is about abortion and contraception. So let's stop the charade. In this case, the bill's sole purpose is to deny access to, and create more barriers to women seeking medical procedures that are legal and constitutionally protected. The bill would enable employers and healthcare companies to override women's personal reproductive health decisions. We have said this before and we will say it again: women's reproductive healthcare decisions simply should not be their boss' business. Religious convictions should be protected but cannot be permitted to infringe on the rights of others. Employers, other than religious institutions, have no right to impose their religious opinions on their employees. An employer's opinion about the propriety of birth control or abortion must have no bearing on whether an employee can get access to abortion or birth control services. Certainly no woman should be denied information about her medical condition or about birth control or abortion because of the religious opinions of her employer; that is not protecting the religious opinion of the employer. That is projecting the religious opinion of the employer onto the employee in derogation of her rights. Religious protections must not be used as a sword against the rights of third parties. They must be used as a shield to protect your own religious liberty, but not to hurt other people. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the Department of Defense from even reviewing locations in the U.S. to hold Guantanamo detainees. It would obviously make it much more difficult to close the prison, which is obviously its purpose, which experts agree that it is the prison that harms U.S. national security. Major General Michael Lehnert, the first commander charged with constructing and operating the Guantanamo detention facility after 9/ 11, recently submitted a statement for the record to the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security, calling Guantanamo ``inconsistent with our values as Americans,'' and recommending the prison be closed. As General Lehnert stated: ``Guantanamo's continued existence hurts us in our prosecution of the fight against terrorists. It feeds into the narrative that the United States is not a Nation of laws nor one that respect human rights.'' Former Secretary of State Colin Powell recently said that closing Guantanamo is in the United States ``best interest.'' Powell also stressed the effectiveness of U.S. Federal courts to prosecute terrorism offenses, which have convicted over 67 individuals of such charges since 9/11, including Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith. Federal courts have been vastly more successful than the Guantanamo military commissions, where four of the eight detainees convicted have had their convictions completely overturned. Prohibiting the Department of Defense from assessing U.S. locations to hold Guantanamo detainees is fiscally irresponsible. It costs us $34,000 a year to hold a detainee in a Federal supermax prison. It costs us $5 million a year to hold a detainee in Guantanamo. That is $5 million versus $34,000. Even if it costs money to build a new supermax--although, I don't know why we would need a new supermax. There is plenty of room in our supermax prisons for the maximum number, which is 91 people now in Guantanamo, even assuming none of them were released. Ninety-one times $5 million, minus 91 times $34,000 is a gross waste of money. Even if you had to spend money to build a new supermax prison, you are still saving a lot of money in the long run. The last thing I want to say is, why would we subject our States as dumping grounds for terrorists? Well, we have 67 terrorists convicted since 9/11 in American prisons and supermaxes in the United States. No one has ever escaped from a supermax prison. It is pure fear-mongering to say that a State or any place in the United States would be endangered by having a terrorist or anyone else in a supermax prison. If the terrorist from Orlando had not been shot dead, he would presumably be either sentenced to death or sentenced to life in prison. He would be in a prison in the United States, and no one would say that is unsafe. No one would say: You have got to export him from the country. That is just pure, aberrant nonsense. So we ought to shut the prison because it is fiscally sound. It would remove a terrorist propaganda point from al Qaeda and ISIS and everybody else. And not all those 91--some of them may be the worst of the worst. Some of them may not be. Some of them we know were simply handed over to bounty hunters because some other tribe in Afghanistan thought this is a good way--the Americans are handing out $5,000, $10,000--this is a good way to get rid of our rivals. They ought to be tried. If guilty, they ought to be kept in prison for life, perhaps, depending on what they are guilty of. But if innocent, they ought to be released. And to say they ought to stay in Guantanamo without trial--and we know the military tribunals don't work; they haven't managed to convict anybody and make it stick-- forever is un-American.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have spoken on this floor many, many times against amendments--so far, futilely--against amendments to bar the transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo or to prohibit the expenditure of funds to move them here or anywhere else. This amendment is particularly pernicious. It says you may not spend any funds to move anyone from Guantanamo, period. That has to be unconstitutional, because what it says is, even if you find that an individual is innocent, even if you factually find out he is guilty of no terrorism, he didn't fight against us, he is not a prisoner of war, he is guilty of nothing, he must stay in jail forever. How can an American legislative body pass a provision that says we will hold someone in jail forever, not only without trial, but even if we know he is innocent of everything? I will make no further argument--I only have 1 minute--but the fact of the matter is it is clearly unconstitutional, clearly immoral, and against everything we should stand for. No one should vote for this amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Number one, they can be segregated in Federal prisons in the United States, and maybe they should be. Number two, some of them are indeed great terrorists and some aren't. Number three, they may have been captured in war zones, but they weren't in uniform, which means some of them may not have been combatants. That is what has to be determined. If they were combatants, they can be held under the law of war; but if they weren't combatants and they haven't committed any crimes, they should be released. There has to be some due process. We can't hold people in prison forever with no trial, no due process because we think maybe--and remember, some of these people were. We offered bounties to tribes in Afghanistan. And like the Hatfields and the McCoys, the Hatfields turned in the McCoys, and we don't really know that all the McCoys were guilty of anything or engaged in combat. Before we can hold them under the laws of war, we ought to at least have some sort of review to find that out. It is not true that all of them are the most dangerous. Some are; some are not. We owe it to our own traditions to figure out the difference. Not to mention the fact that, to hold them in the United States, it costs $34,000 a year, and to hold them in Guantanamo costs $5 million a year, each. Who is the fiscally responsible party today? I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, this amendment is another amendment in a series we have seen today to prevent any movement toward closing the Guantanamo Bay facility, obviously, and it would prevent the expenditure for any officials who are trying to do that. A number of myths have been propounded as to why we should do this. One, we cannot bring terrorists to the United States. First of all, not everybody in Guantanamo is a terrorist. Some are. Some are not. There should be trials. There should be some form of due process. It is un-American to hold people there for life. Apparently, the people who are in favor of these amendments--this one included--want everyone in Guantanamo to be held forever because you can't spend any money to release them. You can't spend any money to close the prison. You can't spend any money to put them in a facility in the United States. You can't spend any money to do anything except to hold them in jail in Guantanamo forever and for $5 million a piece per year. Several reasons have been introduced for doing this. One, if they are brought to the United States and to a supermax prison, that is dangerous. No, it is not. No one has ever escaped from a supermax prison, and the executive director, Jim Gondles, of the American Correctional Association recently submitted a statement for the record to a House Homeland Security subcommittee stating that U.S. corrections systems, both military and civilian, already hold extremely dangerous people, including terrorists, and have done so for years. No matter how dangerous the detainees are, U.S. correctional systems professionals, military and civilian, have the ability, training, and capacity to take them on. Second, we are told that there is a risk if these people are released--and some of them should be because they are not guilty--that, at some point, they could return to terrorism, assuming they are all terrorists. The fact of the matter is the recidivism rate--now it is true--under the Bush administration was 20.9 percent. Twenty-one percent of the detainees who were released under the Bush administration have returned to some sort of combat or insurgent activity. They didn't do a great job in screening under the Bush administration. Under the Obama administration--in other words, for the last 7\1/2\ years--the figure is not 21 percent; it is a little under 5 percent, 4.9 percent. The White House recently confirmed that no detainees who have been released in this administration--that is to say in the last 8 years--have been responsible for the death of any American. Let's get rid of that bogus point. It has also been misstated on this floor tonight that we don't want to bring Guantanamo prisoners to a supermax facility in the United States: A, because it is dangerous, which is nonsense; B, because they can radicalize other prisoners, which they can be kept apart from; and, C, because they would have more constitutional rights in the United States than in Guantanamo. The Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners at Guantanamo have exactly the same constitutional rights as prisoners who are held in the United States--no more, no less. The attempts to give them fewer constitutional rights are why every single conviction in the military tribunal in Guantanamo has been overturned on appeal so far. They should be brought to the United States or released, depending on the case. They should be tried in a Federal court and put in a supermax prison forever if they are guilty, and if they are not guilty, they ought to be released. That is the American tradition. That is our way of life. It is what we are fighting to defend, at least presumably. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the late NYPD Sergeant Charles H. Cochrane, whose contributions to New York City's civic life are being recognized by the renaming of the intersection of West 11th Street and Washington Street as Sgt. Charles H. Cochrane Way. On November 20, 1981, Sgt. Charles H. Cochrane became the first openly gay officer in the history of the New York City Police Department when he testified before a City Council committee considering a proposal to ban discrimination against homosexuals. Sgt. Cochrane spoke out in favor of the bill, saying ``I am very proud of being a New York City policeman. And I'm equally proud of being gay.'' At the time, Sgt. Cochrane was a fourteen year veteran of the NYPD. His declaration before the City Council committee was a brave statement and a strong condemnation of ignorance and bigotry faced by the LGBT community. Sgt. Cochrane's bravery, passion and drive for the just treatment of LGBT individuals, and specifically of his fellow LGBT law enforcement officials, motivated him to found The Gay Officers Action League (GOAL), an organization dedicated to advocating for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender law enforcement officers. Today, there are GOAL chapters in every major police department in the United States. Sergeant Cochrane passed away in 2008, but his legacy lives on in the community that he fought for and is epitomized by this street renaming in his honor. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent the district where Sgt. Cochrane lived and worked and where he paved the way for countless other individuals and organizations to promote justice and equality within the law enforcement community. On this occasion, I reflect on the recent tragedy in Orlando and remind my colleagues that we have much work ahead of us to achieve an end to hate, bigotry and violence against the LGBT community, despite the strides that we have made as a society due to heroes like Sgt. Cochrane. As Sgt. Cochrane did, we must all stand up for tolerance and equality. I congratulate GOAL on this significant milestone and would like to thank the NYPD officers who spearheaded this initiative.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this week tragedy once again struck our Nation when the deadliest mass shooting in American history occurred in an LGBT nightclub in Orlando early Sunday morning, leaving 49 people dead and more than 50 wounded. Our hearts go out to the victims and their families. So many young people in the prime of their lives were senselessly murdered. It is hard to make sense of it all, but there are three aspects of this tragedy that I want to address today: First, the fact that the shooter pledged allegiance to ISIS is deeply disturbing. We need to follow every lead and find out if he did, indeed, have any connection to ISIS or any other terrorist group. We must pursue those who may have inspired him, trained him, or assisted him in his deadly act, and we must take action to prevent others from being radicalized and turned into deadly killing machines. Second, we must acknowledge that this was a hate crime targeted at the LGBT community. The killer didn't pick his target randomly. He sought out gay, young men in a club environment where they felt safe, where they felt a sense of community and acceptance, and he sought to shatter their world and terrorize and intimidate the LGBT community. I have worked with my friends in the LGBT community for a very long time, and one thing I am sure of is that they will not be intimidated; they will not be beaten down; they will not be forced into hiding; they will not be silenced. The community is strong, it is united, and it is unashamed. The LGBT community will come together to honor the dead and then will keep educating, keep advocating, keep mobilizing for a more fair, a more just society where no one has to live in fear because of who they are or whom they love. Third, it is clear that far fewer people would have been killed or wounded if the attacker had not had access to a deadly assault weapon. Once again, the necessity of controlling access to military-style assault weapons, whose only purpose is to kill large numbers of people as quickly and efficiently as possible, is made tragically clear. Our refusal to ban assault weapons makes this House complicit in this and every other mass murder that we now see on a regular basis. This Chamber is drenched in blood. We must cleanse it. We must pass the long-pending legislation to reinstitute the assault weapon ban. We ban machine guns, and we had an assault weapon ban not that long ago, so it is not a radical proposal. It is not counter to the Second Amendment. It is just common sense. And yet, President George W. Bush let the ban expire, and Republicans in Congress have acted repeatedly to prevent even our consideration of renewing the ban. Every Member of Congress who has refused to support renewing the ban should be forced to answer to their constituents, to their country, and to the countless victims and their families who have suffered so much heartbreak due to gun violence. How can you allow such carnage to go unchecked? How can you do nothing in the face of so much pain? Why won't you stand up to the NRA and at least take the basic step to prevent mass murder? Why won't you ban people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing assault weapons? If someone is too dangerous to permit to fly, certainly he or she is too dangerous to permit to buy assault weapons. And yet this Congress has done nothing except hold repeated moments of silence. That is not enough. This silence, combined with this inaction, makes hypocrites of us all. The American people are baffled by our silence. They demand more. They demand action, action to combat hate, to protect the LGBT community, and to control access to deadly weapons to prevent murderers and lunatics from getting assault weapons. If the leadership of this Congress won't take action, then it ought to be replaced by a leadership that will.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I have long supported the Iron Dome weapons system to defend Israel from short-range missile attacks. I voted to authorize the United States to assist Israel in procuring the weapons. I voted for massive increases in funding for the Iron Dome during the summer of 2014 when Israel was under a daily barrage of missiles, and I spoke out repeatedly on the House floor in favor of fully funding the Iron Dome. I have been lucky enough to have visited Israel many times. Four years ago, I visited an Iron Dome battery in Israel. A single Iron Dome launcher can protect a medium-sized city. I am pleased that this bill includes $62 million for the program. I have offered an amendment to provide an increase in funding of $10 million, which would be sufficient for the procurement of an additional 500 interceptors. My amendment is designed to ensure that Israel has the means to defend itself against an increase in rocket attacks. As we all know, Israel lives in a dangerous part of the world. Since Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, terrorists have fired more than 11,000 rockets into Israel. Over 5 million Israelis currently live under the threat of rocket attacks, and more than a half a million Israelis have less than 60 seconds to find shelter after a rocket is launched from Gaza into Israel. Therefore, I offer this amendment in defense of the civilian population of Israel. I am pleased to hear that the amendment will be accepted. I thank the chairman and the ranking member.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a fiercely determined and independent woman, Mrs. Alice Nicholson Maduro, whose 100th birthday is July 8, 2016. Four years before women gained the right to vote, and 100 years before a woman first earned the nomination to become the President of the United States, Mrs. Maduro was born in New York City on July 8, 1916 to Leone ``Claudine'' Gensollin of Menton, France, and Walter Curtis Nicholson of New York State. Since the grade-schooler Alice Nicholson favored her French mother's pronunciation of her first name, she began to spell it with a ``y'' instead of an ``i'' (Alyce, pronounced ``Aleeece''). The Nicholsons were a hardworking family, raising their children in modest circumstances. When Alyce's school-headmaster father died an early death, he left the family with few means and thus Alyce with little opportunity for higher education. However, this determined young woman was irrepressible and Alyce thrived as a reporter at the Summit New Jersey Herald, editorial assistant at McGraw Hill publications, and executive within the Information & Media Division of the ``Marshall Plan'' in Paris after the Second World War. From Paris, Alyce returned to the United States to work at Radio Free Asia in San Francisco, CA. When Denis Brandon Maduro, Esq. met this intelligent, international, beautiful woman during her east coast visit he fell in love instantaneously. He proposed to her promptly and, in the face of her reticence, lovingly encouraged her to extend her trip indefinitely. The two married two and one-half months later, on August 1, 1953, and yielded three offspring, Denis Brandon Maduro, Jr., Timothy Nicholson Maduro, and Peter Nicholson Maduro. As mother and wife, Mrs. Maduro devoted herself to making a home for her family until her husband Denis Sr.'s untimely death in 1967. Left alone to financially support her three boys, she needed to return to work. Constitutively industrious, Mrs. Maduro became a successful residential real estate broker in Manhattan and maintained an active broker's license through her 98th year. She was also the head of the parents' association at Collegiate School of New York City (the oldest still-operating educational institution in this country) where her children were enrolled. In that role, she was charged to welcome former First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis into the ranks of the parents' activities since John F. Kennedy, Jr. was then also enrolled there as a grade-schooler. In this connection, Mrs. Madura's eldest boy, Denis, was hired to be ``big brother'' to John Jr. during the summer of 1970 on the Onassis' Greek island summer home of Scorpios. By her two eldest sons, Mrs. Maduro is the beloved grandmother of Gabriela Balaz Maduro and Andrea Balaz Maduro, of Jacksonville, Florida, as well as Leah Lee Maduro and Kona Lee Maduro, of Pacific Palisades, California. Still ``sharp as a tack'' and always elegantly turned out, Mrs. Maduro lives completely independently on Manhattan's upper west side, eagerly follows the New York Ballet & Philharmonic, the Manhattan art scene, local and national politics and international current events. Moreover, she elects to take taxi cabs instead of the city bus or subway only when unduly constrained for time. Thrilled to witness an African American and now perhaps a woman lead our country as its chief executive, she hopes to live to the day when people of all genders, identities, ethnicities, origins and religions can achieve high-office without barrier or prejudice. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in paying tribute to an admirably ``tough cookie'' and an outstanding citizen of this great nation, Mrs. Alice Nicholson Maduro, in anticipation of her 100th birthday.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3636, the O-VISA Act. As the lead Democratic cosponsor, I also want to thank the Gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Walters, for introducing this legislation, which will bring some needed transparency to the O visa application process. O visas are reserved for individuals with extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics to perform temporary work in their field here in the United States. For those seeking an O visa specifically to work on a motion picture or television production, the law requires that an individual have ``a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement,'' which must be ``recognized in the field through extensive documentation.'' Through a unique provision in the law, an applicant for an O visa seeking to work on a film or television production must first obtain an opinion from the relevant labor organization in their field. For example, a director must seek an opinion from the Directors Guild of America, and a set designer must consult with the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees. As experts in their field, these organizations are in the best position to determine an applicant's special qualifications. This process is intended to ensure that only the most extraordinary and accomplished individuals--those who are so unique that they could not be replaced by an American worker--are granted an O visa. Unfortunately, in recent years, several unions have expressed deep concerns that a significant number of applicants for whom they have recommended denial have been admitted into the United States nonetheless. In some instances, the unions have documented fraud on the part of the applicant, while in some cases, the government simply reached a different conclusion. But, because the consulting union is never informed by the government whether a particular application was approved or denied, it is impossible to know the full extent of this problem. The O-VISA Act would bring needed transparency to this process by requiring USCIS to provide a copy of any final determination to the consulting union. This is a narrow, but critically important provision. Although the unions have expended a great deal of resources to discover the outcome of their advisory opinions, they are in the dark about the vast majority of cases. Although they could serve as a partner to USCIS in rooting out fraud and abuse, they lack the information they need to follow up on suspicious cases. I should point out that the unions have assured me that their concerns about fraud do not stem from any applications by the major studios. The problems occur with certain unscrupulous independent companies that abuse the process in a variety of ways. Of course, there need not be any fraud for USCIS to reach a different conclusion about the merits of a particular applicant. But, if this is occurring in a significant number of cases, it may signify a systemic problem in how the agency is considering applications, or a lack of understanding by the union of how cases should be evaluated. In either case, it is only fair that the unions have sufficient knowledge of how petitions are decided so that they can have a meaningful discussion with USCIS about any concerns they may have. The O-VISA Act would provide the transparency necessary to undertake this process and I urge my colleagues to support it. I want to note that since this bill simply requires that USCIS provide a copy of any final decision to the consulting organization, it should not burden the agency or add any delays in processing O visa applications. However, I recognize that many sponsoring employers have expressed concerns over the inefficiency of the current process, and that reforms are needed to streamline the application process. The language contained in H.R. 3636 has historically been coupled with provisions that also make important changes to the O- and B- visa programs for those seeking entry for motion picture and television productions. These provisions were included in such bills as the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform legislation from last Congress. Specifically, these changes provided the same commonsense portability that exists in other visa categories, removed redundancies in the consultation process, and better aligned these entry programs with others that might involve an honorarium or appearance fee. I appreciate Chairman Goodlatte's assurances during the markup on the O-VISA Act that he intends to address these commonsense changes to the O- and B-programs that have historically accompanied the provisions in this bill in the future. And I am pleased that we are advancing this bill today. The O-VISA Act will help ensure the integrity of the O visa program while protecting the jobs of American artists and craftsmen in the film and television industries. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 68th Yom Ha'Atzmaut, Israel's Independence Day, which took place on May 12th, 2016. Sixty-eight years ago, the founders of Israel sat in a hall at the Tel Aviv Museum of Art and made the fateful decision to declare Israel an independent state for the Jewish people. Following centuries of persecution in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, and even, sadly, the United States, with the worst culmination of anti-Semitism during the Shoah--in which six million Jews were systematically executed-- Israel became the first modern homeland for Jews. I am proud that the United States of America played a role in the birth of this new state, becoming the first country in the world to recognize Israel's existence just minutes after David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel's nationhood. President Truman rightfully understood the new State of Israel represented the same western democratic values that the United States cherished, and acknowledged that an independent state for the Jewish people was long overdue. His endorsement of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948 sealed our two nations in an unbreakable bond that remains strong to this very day. Over the last sixty-eight years, the relationship between the United States and Israel has flourished. In addition to promoting our continued shared values, Israel has emerged as a crucial ally in the Middle East, and a strong partner in our work to enhance global security. Furthermore, Israel has contributed valuable innovations to the global community that help our businesses run more efficiently and make our world more environmentally friendly. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today proud of my work to support and strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship. On this occasion, I reflect on the importance of maintaining strong ties with Israel, and remind my colleagues of the importance of working together to create a lasting peace in the region. I congratulate the State of Israel on its sixty-eighth anniversary, and am confident that our bond will remain unbreakable for years to come.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule for a number of reasons: because it doesn't make a proper AUMF in order, because it fails to make in order an amendment I cosponsored along with Representatives Dent, Smith, and several others. The bill contains language adopted by the Committee on Armed Services at 1 in the morning the other day with no warning that would effectively overturn President Obama's executive order protecting LGBT workers for companies with private contracts. In other words, private contractors using our Federal tax dollars in any area--not just in the defense area, by the way--would be allowed to fire someone just because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. This is unacceptable, it is cruel, and it is totally unnecessary. Now, the distinguished gentleman said that the language contains nothing referring to gay or lesbian people; it simply protects religious liberty. It says that private contractors, in the exercise of their religious liberty, may discriminate. It disallows the President's executive order, and so the effect is that private contractors may discriminate on the basis of sexual identity or gender if that is their religious belief. No one has said it for years on this floor, but they used to, that it is okay to say: My religious belief says I shouldn't hire a Black person or a Jewish person. We don't think that is acceptable, and we don't call that religious liberty. But we now call religious liberty the ability of a private contractor to fire someone or refuse to hire them just because they are gay or lesbian. That is cruel and unacceptable. Why not allow the House to vote on whether or not to include this type of hateful language in the defense bill? Why not allow a vote on the Dent-Smith amendment? Must we let this bigotry and intolerance win the day? We ought to defeat this rule. I, for one, will not vote for the entire bill if this language is included in it. We must strip this toxic, hateful measure from the NDAA, if not through an amendment, then in conference. We ought to ensure that no Federal contractor has the ability to fire someone just because of who they are or who they love and because they profess that it is their religious belief. So they cannot be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on hiring and firing other people. We must continue to fight until all Americans have the rights they deserve.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike sections 1032 and 1033 of the bill, which prohibit the use of funds to transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States or to construct or expand any facility in the U.S. to house any individual currently detained at Guantanamo. Simply put, the section is designed to prevent the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo and to make it as difficult as possible to transfer detainees to a different facility. My amendment is intended to do the opposite and to finally bring to a close a shameful chapter of American history. The President's Statement of Administration Policy says the following: ``The administration strongly objects to several provisions of the bill that relate to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. As the administration has said many times before, operating this facility weakens our national security by draining resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and partners, and emboldening violent extremists. In February, the administration submitted a comprehensive plan to safely and responsibly close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and to bring this chapter of our history to a close. Rather than taking steps to close the facility, this bill aims to extend its operation. Sections 1032 and 1033 would continue to prohibit the use of funds to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the United States or even to construct or modify any facility in the United States to house detainees. These restrictions would limit the ability of the executive branch to take the steps necessary to develop alternative locations for a detention facility, and from fulfilling its commitment to close the facility at Guantanamo.'' Mr. Chairman, it is truly astonishing that in 2016 the United States continues to hold people indefinitely who have not been charged, let alone convicted, of any crime and who, in some cases, have been judged not to pose any threat to the United States. By continuing to hold prisoners indefinitely without charging them and without trial is inconsistent with our professed support of liberty. Now, I know some will say the detainees are dangerous terrorists, and some undoubtedly are. But some of them are not. They are merely people who were captured in some way but who have not been charged or judged as terrorists. Some of them are simply victims of the fact that the United States paid bounties to people in Afghanistan years ago to turn in people who they said were terrorists. The Hatfields turned in the McCoys because--why not? We were giving them a bounty of a few thousand dollars a head. For the truly dangerous, we ought to prosecute them and, if convicted, punish them appropriately. We have, for those who need it, supermax prisons in the United States from which no one has ever escaped. There is no reason to spend so much money in Guantanamo and have this continuing shame on the reputation of the United States. Speaking of money, GTMO is the world's most expensive prison by far. We are spending about $2.9 million annually per prisoner. It costs us less than $35,000 per prisoner to hold someone in a supermax facility in the United States. Frankly, they don't deserve the spending. We should be spending that money here in the United States, not on terrorists, but on teachers or maybe on defense. No one will argue that that money could not be spent better somewhere else. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter signed by more than 30 retired generals urging the Congress to responsibly close the detention facility at Guantanamo. They quote President George Bush when he said that the facility had become a ``propaganda tool for our enemies.'' March 1, 2016. Senator John McCain, Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, Russell Senate Building, Washington, DC. Senator Jack Reed, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Service Committee, Russell Senate Building, Washington, DC. Representative Mac Thornberry, Chairman, House Armed Services Committee, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Representative Adam Smith, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee, Rayburn House Office Building. Washington, DC. Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members: For over seven years we, a group of retired flag and general officers of the United States Armed Forces, have advocated the responsible closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. We have done this because it is what is best for our country. It is in our national security interests, and above all, it is about reestablishing who we are as a country. Last week the administration presented its plan for closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. As the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Armed Service Committees, yours is a solemn responsibility. We write to encourage you to use this plan as a foundation to come together and find a path to finally shutter the detention facility. This should not be a political issue. Former President George W. Bush determined that Guantanamo should be closed because, in his words, ``. . . the detention facility had become a propaganda tool for our enemies and a distraction for our allies. I worked to find a way to close the prison without compromising security.'' The current plan similarly seeks to achieve that objective, following the advice of our nation's top military, intelligence, and law enforcement leaders. Closing Guantanamo will not be easy, but it is the right thing to do, and we call on you to work together to accomplish it. We take heart that our nation has elected people who will exercise their conscientious judgment, but who will not allow politics to obscure courage. Compromise for the common good is the true exercise of leadership and courage. Sincerely, General Charles Krulak, USMC (Ret); Vice Admiral Richard H. Carmona, USPHS (Ret.); Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard, Jr., USA (Ret.); Lieutenant General Richard L. Kelly, USMC (Ret.); Lieutenant General Charles Otstott, USA (Ret.); Lieutenant General Keith J. Stalder, USMC (Ret.); Major General Eugene Fox, USA (Ret.); Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, JAGC, USN (Ret.); Major General Michael R. Lehnert, USMC (Ret.); Major General Eric T. Olson, USA (Ret.); Major General Walter L. Stewart, Jr., USA (Ret.); Major General Margaret Woodward, USAF (Ret.); Brigadier General David M. Brahms, USMC (Ret.); Brigadier General James P. Cullen, USA (Ret.). General David M. Maddox, USA (Ret.); Lieutenant General John Castellaw, USMC (Ret.); Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.); Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy, USA (Ret.); Lieutenant General Norman R. Seip, USAF (Ret.); Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA (Ret.); Rear Admiral Don Guter, JAGC, USN (Ret.); Major General Carl B. Jensen, USMC (Ret.); Major General William L. Nash, USA (Ret.); Major General Thomas J. Romig, USA (Ret.); Major General Antonio M. Taguba, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General John Adams, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General Stephen A. Cheney, USMC (Ret.); Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote, USA (Ret.). Brigadier General Alan K. Fry, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General David R. Irvine, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General Richard O'Meara, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General Daniel P. Woodward, USAF (Ret.); Brigadier General Leif H. Hendrickson, USMC (Ret.); Brigadier General John H. Johns, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General Murray G. Sagsveen, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General Stephen N. Xenakis, USA (Ret.).

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

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