Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, we have heard again the mantra from the other side: These people are the worst of the worst. They have American blood on their hands. Some of them may, but many of them don't. They have not been tried. I don't know with what authority you say they are the worst of the worst; they have American blood on their hands. True of some, not of others. What kind of system is it for the United States to simply take people, not try them, not accuse them, and hold them indefinitely because somebody says that they are the worst of the worst? On what authority and on what proof? As for the funding, it costs between $3 million and $5 million--$2.9 million here in 2013, closer to $5 million now--per person per year. It costs $35,000 to hold someone in a supermax facility. I don't know why we have to build new supermax facilities, but if we do, we should. The point is it is incredibly expensive to keep them there for no reason. Again, some of those people ought to be tried and sentenced to life imprisonment or whatever, some of them ought to be freed. Some of them have been judged not to be, have already been found not to be a danger to the United States. Simply repeating over and over again that they are all the worst of the worst, they all have American blood on their hands, when it is simply not true--some of them yes, some of them no-- does not make the case. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER. So, again, for all these reasons--it weakens our security, it drains our resources, it emboldens our enemies, and it is contrary to liberty and everything that we stand for--I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to lift these restrictions on closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. If people must be kept in prison, then they can be kept here a heck of a lot more cheaply and without subjecting us to the continued propaganda against Guantanamo. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Email Privacy Act. It has long been evident that we need to update the laws impacting electronic communications and privacy. I am pleased that, today, the House will take a major step forward by considering and approving the Email Privacy Act. Its passage is long overdue. In 2009 and 2010, when I was the chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, we held multiple hearings on ECPA, or electronic communication and privacy laws, and began to seriously consider reforms to our Nation's electronic communication and privacy laws. During the 112th Congress, Representative Conyers and I introduced the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Modernization Act of 2012, which would have required law enforcement to obtain a warrant based on probable cause before searching email. That approach, now embodied in the Yoder-Polis Email Privacy Act, is what we are here to consider today. The Email Privacy Act requires the government to obtain a warrant in order to access people's electronic communications from a third-party provider, protecting Americans' privacy rights while still enabling law enforcement to do its job. This is consistent with a stark American practice going back to the Fourth Amendment. Current law is inconsistent and unclear regarding the standards for government access to the content of communications, and a single email is potentially subject to multiple different legal standards. Clarifying the laws will 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. In an era where government access to people's private information held by third-party providers has become far too easy, Congress is finally taking steps to update our laws to reflect our new understanding of what it means for ``people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,'' in the words of the Fourth Amendment. This bill is not perfect, and clearly there is more to be done. In particular, we must ensure that we keep working to require a probable cause warrant for location information. I am pleased that Chairman Goodlatte has announced that he plans to hold hearings on location information, and I look forward to those hearings and to subsequent legislation. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill, and I applaud the House for considering this landmark legislation today. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this bill to ensure that our laws strike the right balance between the interests and needs of law enforcement and the privacy rights of the American people.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. The bill we are considering today represents the culmination of over 2 years of negotiations with various stakeholders and has strong bipartisan support, with 164 cosponsors in the House and 65 in the Senate. This is good legislation that carefully balances the rights of defendants and the needs of American businesses to protect their most valuable assets. The Senate passed the bill 87-0. With passage here today, we can send it straight to the President's desk. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1890, the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016. This long overdue legislation would protect businesses across the country from the growing threat of trade secrets theft by creating a uniform Federal civil cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets. Trade secrets are proprietary business information that derive their value from being and remaining secret. This includes secret recipes, software codes, and manufacturing processes--information that, if disclosed, could prove ruinous to a company. As the United States economy becomes more and more knowledge- and service-based, trade secrets are increasingly becoming the foundation of businesses across the country, with one estimate placing the value of trade secrets in the United States at $5 trillion. Unfortunately, with such fortunes resting on trade secrets, theft of this property is inevitable. And in today's digital environment, it has never been easier to transfer stolen property across the globe with the click of a button. By one estimate, the American economy loses annually as much as $300 billion or more due to misappropriation of trade secrets, leading to loss of up to 2.1 billion jobs each year. With so much at stake, it is absolutely vital that the law include strong protections against theft of trade secrets. However, our current patchwork of Federal and State laws has proven inadequate to the job. While the Federal Government may bring criminal prosecutions and may move for civil injunctions, this power is rarely exercised and often fails to adequately compensate the victims. The States provide civil causes of action for victims of theft, with money damages available, but this system has not proven efficient or effective for incidents that cross State and, sometimes, international borders. Once upon a time, trade secrets might have been kept in a file cabinet somewhere, and would-be thieves would have to spirit away a physical copy, making it likely that they would be caught before crossing State lines. But today, trade secrets can be loaded onto a thumb drive and mailed out of State or even sent electronically anywhere across the globe in an instant. Pursuing a defendant and the evidence in dispute across State lines present a host of challenges for victims of trade secret theft, particularly when time is of the essence. The need for a Federal solution is, therefore, clear. The Defend Trade Secrets Act fills this gap by creating a uniform Federal civil cause of action for theft of trade secrets. It also provides for expedited ex parte seizure of property, but only in extraordinary circumstances where necessary to preserve evidence or prevent dissemination. As the lead Democratic cosponsor of H.R. 3326, the House companion to this legislation, I am very pleased that this bill is on the floor today, and I want to thank everyone who worked hard to bring us to this point. In particular, I want to thank the sponsor of H.R. 3326, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), as well as Ranking Member Conyers, Chairman Goodlatte, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries). I also appreciate the sponsors of the Senate bill, S. 1890, Senators Hatch and Coons, for all of their work on this legislation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I had to return to New York, and as a result, I missed votes on April 14 through 15, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on roll call vote No. 146, Final Passage of H.R. 3340, the Financial Stability Oversight Council Reform Act, ``no'' on roll call vote No. 149, Final Passage of H.R. 3791 to raise the consolidated assets threshold under the small bank holding company policy statement, ``aye'' on roll call vote No. 150, the Amendment offered by Mr. Yarmuth to clarify that nothing in H.R. 2666 prevents the FCC from requiring or enhancing transparency, ``aye'' on roll call vote No. 141, the Amendment offered by Mr. McNerney stating that nothing in H.R. 2666 shall affect the authority of the FCC to act in the public interest, and ``no'' on roll call vote No. 152, Final Passage of H.R. 2666, the No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the so-called Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act. The main purpose of the bill is to make it easier to remove State cases to Federal courts where large corporate defendants have numerous advantages over consumers, patients, and injured workers. This bill is yet another attempt by the Republicans to tilt the legal playing field in favor of large corporations. It will clog the Federal courts, drain judicial resources, upset well-established law, and delay justice for plaintiffs seeking to hold corporations accountable for harming consumers or injuring workers. This bill is part of a general effort by the Republicans to close off access to the courts to ordinary Americans. With every step the Republicans take, whether it be to put forward bills to make class action suits more difficult, to remove more local cases to Federal courts, to reclassify more lawsuits as frivolous and subject to mandatory sanctions, or to oppose legislative attempts to limit mandatory arbitration clauses, they are transforming our system of justice. Our courts are being turned into a forum where only very rich people can get justice, where corporations can easily escape liability, and where consumers and the injured can get no relief, and it is all tilted one way. There is nothing in this bill or in any other bill put forward by the other side that will help ordinary consumers hold big corporations responsible for actions that harm the little guy. Under this so-called Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act, anytime there is a case with at least one instate, nondiverse, and out-of-state, diverse, defendant, the defendants will use this forum shopping bill law to delay justice. These attempted removals will result in contentious disputes over whether the court has jurisdiction. It will drain court time, as the courts will have to engage in almost a minitrial, reviewing pleadings, affidavits, and other evidence submitted by the parties since this bill turns a simple procedural determination into a merits determination. At a minimum, the bill will allow corporate defendants to successfully force the plaintiff to expend their limited resources on what should be a simple procedural matter. Under this bill, this preliminary decision would become a baseless, time-consuming merits inquiry of the case before a second time- consuming merits inquiry on the substance. While large corporations can easily accommodate such cost, injured workers, consumers, and patients cannot. I am amazed by some of my colleagues who, with this bill, will bring even more cases to our Federal courts. I don't need to remind you that our Federal courts are facing an enormous number of judicial vacancies with no end in sight due to delays in confirmations in the other body. Yet, this bill would increase the workload of the Federal courts with cases based on the flimsiest of Federal jurisdiction. It makes no sense. This bill will take up valuable Federal court time with State claims based on State law, preventing the Federal courts from hearing and managing cases that are properly before them. Finally, despite its name, this bill is not about fraud. Indeed, the proponents cite no example that alleges actual fraud. I would say this is a bill in search of a problem. I would say that, if I didn't understand, the true purpose of the bill is not to stop fraud, but to further tilt the scales of justice in favor of big corporations over the needs of ordinary Americans. For these reasons, I oppose it. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this bill as well. We should defeat this bill and start making Congress great again.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, more than 14 years ago, two jet planes were deliberately crashed into the World Trade Center--killing thousands of innocent people. A third plane slammed into the Pentagon, and a fourth plane, likely destined for this very Capitol complex in which we now stand, was brought down by a group of courageous passengers in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. As I do today, I represented Ground Zero--the World Trade Center area--on September 11, 2001. In the hours immediately after the attack, I left Washington and took the last train back to my home in New York. I will never forget the moment I first saw the ravaged skyline of Lower Manhattan from the train windows. Normally, on the train, while going between Philadelphia and New York, I would look to see the first glimpse I could catch of the Twin Towers. Now what you could see were not the Twin Towers but long, tall, billowing clouds of smoke that were going straight up and then were stretching down the Jersey Shore. The Twin Towers had been replaced by the brutal glow of raging fires and of black, billowing smoke. The train that left at 10 o'clock arrived at 6 p.m. We had been held up in Baltimore while they walked the tracks, looking for bombs. Coming out of Penn Station at 6 o'clock was like a scene from the movie ``On the Beach'' for those who remember that movie. Nothing was moving. The city at 33rd Street and Eighth Avenue seemed completely empty--no people, no cars, no buses. There was nothing moving as if it were completely depopulated. To get home, I had to call a friend to come pick me up. When I went down to the World Trade Center the next morning, the scene was absolutely horrible. There was fire, smoke, debris, twisted metal, human remains--total devastation. Yet, even then, there were signs of hope. Firefighters, police, Emergency Medical Technicians, ironworkers, and construction workers of all types rushed to Ground Zero from around the country to offer their help. Messages of support and comfort flooded in from all 50 States. The American people were united and determined to help New York get back on its feet. The attack may have occurred in my district, but it was an attack on our Nation as a whole, and we all recognized that. In the years since the attacks, America has acted as a Nation to help rebuild New York and to support the responders, survivors, and families of the victims. Last year, Congress reauthorized the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act so as to provide health care and support the 33,000 responders and survivors who now live in all 50 States and in 429 congressional districts. By passing a permanent health program and reauthorizing the Victim Compensation Fund, Congress provided peace of mind for tens of thousands of brave Americans. In addition to making our responders and survivors whole, Congress invested billions of dollars to help rebuild Lower Manhattan. One World Trade Center now fills the hole that was left in our skyline when the towers fell, and businesses that were shuttered after the attack are reopened and are thriving. In what was once the shadow of the towers, there now stands a comprehensive museum that is dedicated to sharing the stories of September 11th and the bravery of those who risked everything to protect their fellow Americans on that day and on the days following. In place of the smoking hole that Congressman MacArthur and I saw day after day in Lower Manhattan, there now exists a somber and inspiring memorial. It is a site of remembrance and hope--a place for every American to come and reflect as to what happened on that September morning and to renew our promise to never forget the events of that day. It is a national memorial for a national tragedy. That is why I am pleased to cosponsor the legislation, introduced by my colleague from New Jersey, to provide Federal recognition and support for the memorial. This legislation will help ensure the memorial continues to provide a sacred and inspiring spot for generations to come. I appreciate the bipartisan support from the members of the Natural Resources Committee and from the House leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the House Appropriations Committee every year to ensure that the National 9/11 Memorial and Museum receives appropriate levels of funding. I will also work with my colleagues to maintain open communications with the Department of the Interior to ensure the money is spent wisely and achieves our shared goal of ensuring the memorial remains a spot of reflection and peace and is accessible to millions of visitors every day. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and provide the recognition and support this memorial deserves.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, for more than 20 years, I have been an adamant supporter of HOPWA. I share many of Mr. Price's concerns about the outdated formula for how HOPWA funding is allocated. However, I cannot support this amendment. The current formula's reliance on cumulative AIDS cases is problematic and does need to be updated to better reflect the new reality of the incidence of the disease. Mr. Price's proposal, while well intended, will just shift scarce resources around, cutting off thousands of current beneficiaries to move the money to different parts of the country. If the amendment changed the formula for new HOPWA funds, if there were new HOPWA funds, it would be more acceptable, but the amendment would shift existing funds on which people now rely. New York City is a stark example. This formula change would eventually cut the city's annual HOPWA funding by nearly 25 percent. That cut would translate into real people. A quarter of New Yorkers living with AIDS and currently receiving HOPWA support for their housing would be thrown out of their homes. We are talking about people living with AIDS with HOPWA support being ousted from their present homes. I understand that people in many areas living with AIDS need housing, but Congress should be focused on growing HOPWA and expanding the number of people enrolled in the program, not on throwing more people living with AIDS out of their present homes. If people living with AIDS in Mr. Price's district and in other districts need more HOPWA funding--and they do--Congress should provide it to them without depriving people living with AIDS in New York, Atlanta, and San Francisco of their existing housing. Rather than shifting around limited pools of money and helping homeless people in one part of the country by creating more homelessness in another part of the country, we should be increasing funding for HOPWA to meet the actual needs of the people living with AIDS in the United States. That is why every year I offer an amendment to the T-HUD appropriations bill increasing HOPWA funding and will continue to do so. I recognize Mr. Price's hard work and long years of advocacy for HOPWA, but I cannot support this amendment as written today. I hope that, going forward through regular legislative order, we can identify a fair, equitable formula update that does not harm current beneficiaries, that is to say, harm people living with AIDS because of their HOPWA funding in their homes today. Mr. PRICE OF North Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, do I have 1 minute remaining?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, last month I said that my Republican colleagues had declared their verdict against Planned Parenthood without ever holding a trial. Now it is even worse. A grand jury in Texas has not only refused to indict Planned Parenthood, but instead indicted two individuals who made this series of blatantly manipulated, false videos on which the Republicans base their attack. Despite this unequivocal finding by a grand jury, not to mention by several congressional committees that Planned Parenthood has violated no laws and done nothing wrong, the Republicans are forging ahead in this ludicrous effort to cut off all Federal funding. If we override this veto today, we will pass legislation that targets one organization and cuts it off from all Federal funding, including reimbursement for services provided, for no justifiable legislative reason beyond punishment for offering a constitutionally protected medical procedure. This is a clearly unconstitutional bill of attainder. The prohibition on bills of attainder exist to ensure that Congress may not usurp the powers of the courts by using legislation to punish an organization or individual that a majority in Congress doesn't like. The Constitution is clear. Congress cannot be judge, jury, and executioner.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, it is not our role to declare an organization guilty and to impose a punishment. That is for a court. Not only is this bill an unconstitutional bill of attainder, it is a travesty and is seeking to punish one of the best, most praiseworthy organizations in the country, and punish it for what? For enabling women to exercise their constitutional rights. This is really not only an unconstitutional act, but it is part of the war on women.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, my amendment would address the bill's serious violation of the privacy of asbestos victims. Instead of requiring asbestos trusts to disclose detailed personal information about asbestos victims, as the bill would do, my amendment would require aggregate reporting of the demands received and payments made by those trusts. This would ensure transparency of the trusts without jeopardizing the privacy of the victims. Let's remember why these asbestos trusts are established in the first place. Corporations that knowingly produced a toxic substance that killed or seriously injured unsuspecting American consumers and workers have since been held accountable for their practices through litigation. Asbestos companies that enter bankruptcy have the option of establishing a trust to satisfy the obligations to their victims while shielding themselves from future claims when they emerge from bankruptcy. As if contracting a painful and life-threatening disease like lung cancer or mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos is not bad enough, this bill would further victimize claimants by putting their personal information on the Internet, available to anyone who may seek to take advantage of them. The bill would require each asbestos trust to list the payment demands it has received, the amounts demanded, as well as the names and exposure histories of each claimant, along with the basis for any payment from the trust of such claimant. This information would be posted on the public docket of the court that established the trust, a docket that is easily accessible on the Internet through paying a nominal fee. Now, it is true that the reports required under this bill would not include any ``confidential medical record''--a term that is undefined-- or a claimant's full Social Security number, but with just the information that the bill requires to be provided, one can still learn a tremendous amount of sensitive health information about a victim. Releasing such information is an invitation to scam artists, to identity thieves, as well as to data brokers who may use the information collected to deny employment or credit or insurance to the victims. To prevent this totally unnecessary and wrong invasion of privacy, my amendment would say, okay, we will release aggregate data from the trust sufficient to ensure transparency and to combat the imagined fraud claimed by supporters of the bill, but we won't expose the personal information of asbestos victims and make them vulnerable to further victimization. Rather than standing with the corporations supporting this legislation, which spent decades poisoning Americans with asbestos, I urge my colleagues to stand with Susan Vento, a fierce opponent of this bill and the widow of our former colleague Bruce Vento, who lost his life due to asbestos exposure. Stand with the many organizations opposing this bill that do not wish to see asbestos victims' personal information compromised. Stand with the victims who have suffered enough. If you believe there is fraud, fine. The amendment would say present the aggregate information which would prevent or reveal the fraud, but don't further victimize the victims by putting their personal information on the Internet so that they can be further victimized in their privacy, and in reality they can be victimized by scam artists or employers or others. I urge adoption of the Nadler amendment. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, we should realize that the Bankruptcy Code sections cited by the distinguished gentleman from Texas are permissive, not mandatory. Bankruptcy Code section 107(c), for example, permits, but does not require, the bankruptcy court to issue an order prohibiting the disclosure of certain information pertaining to an individual's for cause if the court finds that disclosure of such information would create undue risk of identity theft or other unlawful injury to the individual or the individual's property. In other words, the victim here, who has been victimized by the people who produced the asbestos, would now have to go into court and request the protective order. The burden would be on the victim. Why are we putting the burden on the victim instead of on the tortfeasor? The bill would do that. The Bankruptcy Code's section 107 so-called privacy protection is not automatic. As a result, the asbestos victim would have to retain counsel and go to court to prove cause to obtain relief. Again, you are shifting the burden further to the victim from the tortfeasor. That is not a very good idea, and there is no great necessity for it. If the court finds or if a trust believes that it is being defrauded, it can request the court to get this information. It can ask for discovery. Yes, discovery is expensive, but you want to shift the expense to the victim. That is highly unfair. This bill shifts tremendous burden to the victim. If he doesn't pick up that burden and go in for protective orders, it puts personal information that can be used to further victimize him open to anyone who wants to get it on the Internet. My amendment would say no, to publish aggregate data that will help prevent fraud--I am not sure that there is much fraud--but publish aggregate data that would help prevent fraud; and if you have a reason, then you can go and ask the court for more, instead of the other way around. The question is: Should the burden be on the tortfeasor or on the victim? I side with the victim. I urge the adoption of this amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this is Alice in Wonderland. First the verdict, then the trial. The Republicans have declared the verdict against Planned Parenthood before ever holding the trial. With no shred of evidence aside from a series of blatantly manipulated videos, without a single House committee finding any wrongdoing, without the select committee ostensibly set up to look at Planned Parenthood holding a single meeting, they have decided in this bill to cut off all Federal funding, including Medicaid reimbursement, for one organization. The legislation we are voting on today targets one organization and cuts it off from all Federal funding, including reimbursement for Medicaid services provided, for no justifiable legislative reason beyond punishment for offering a constitutionally protected medical procedure. This smacks of a clearly unconstitutional bill of attainder. The prohibition on bills of attainder exists to prevent just this kind of targeted attack on a single group. You cannot use legislation to punish a single organization without any evidence or fair legislative process simply because you don't like it. While the legislation never mentions the words ``Planned Parenthood,'' we have heard and will hear here today Planned Parenthood's name over and over again from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle during this debate. No one can say this bill is not aimed directly at one organization. Of course, if the Republicans in Congress had any evidence that Planned Parenthood broke the law, they would have taken it to the Attorney General or the FBI, but they didn't. If they had any faith in the extremists who made these accusations against Planned Parenthood, they would have brought them before Congress to testify, but they didn't. The truth is this attack on Planned Parenthood is knowingly based on a whole series of lies. The longer the Republicans keep up this pretense in order to stoke the flames with their inflammatory rhetoric, the longer they put patients and providers at risk of unstable people committing murder, as we have seen at abortion clinics. Bulletproof glass and safe rooms should not be necessary for women to access basic health care like cancer screenings or contraception, but if this farcical attack on Planned Parenthood doesn't stop, that would be the norm for women around the country. You want a breast exam, you want contraception, you put your life at risk. Do not be fooled by claims that this funding will go to other healthcare providers and Planned Parenthood's patients will follow it. It is simply not true. More than half of Planned Parenthood's patients rely on Medicaid. Most States do not have enough providers, particularly specialists like OB/GYNs, taking Medicaid patients 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. Enough is enough. It is time for my Republican colleagues to accept what they know is true. Planned Parenthood has done nothing more than provide compassionate, comprehensive care for millions of Americans in a safe, legal manner. Stop the rhetoric. Stop the lies. Don't deprive people of abortion services, of healthcare services, of contraception services, of breast exams. Vote ``no'' on this rule, vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, and don't violate the Constitution with a bill of attainder.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the FAST Act, which authorizes $305 billion over 5 years for highways, transit, and rail, including Amtrak. Although many of us would have preferred much higher funding levels, the conference agreement provides an increase in funding of $12.8 billion above the House bill and $26.8 billion in guaranteed funding above fiscal year 2015 levels. The funding increase allows us to preserve core highway and transit programs and to still invest in new key areas. New York State will get an additional $1.5 billion above current levels in highway and transit formula funding over the life of the bill, of which an estimated $500 million will go to projects in New York City. The bill provides $4.5 billion for the new freight program, originally created in the House bill for large-scale, multimodal projects that are critical to our regional and national economy. This was a key recommendation of the freight panel on which I was the ranking member, along with Mr. Duncan as chairman, and I am very proud that it is included in the final conference report. The bill increases funding for transit, including the major programs that benefit New York, such as section 5340--High-Density States program, the State of Good Repair program, and capital investment grants, and it preserves the ability to flex other transportation funding toward major transit projects. I am mostly pleased that the conference report authorizes $10.2 billion over 5 years for intercity passenger rail, including $8 billion for Amtrak; dedicates resources for Northeast corridor improvements; and provides $200 million to help commuter railroads implement positive train control. It also increases the liability limit on rail passenger accidents to $295 million, retroactively, to help cover claims for those killed or injured in the Amtrak derailment outside of Pennsylvania last May. I commend Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and my fellow conferees for all of their hard work in finally bringing a long-term transportation bill to fruition. It has been too long. I am glad we finally did it. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this conference report. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Transportation Conference Report, now called the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015. I want to thank Chairman Shuster, and Ranking Member DeFazio, for developing a bipartisan bill that we can all be proud to support. The Conference Report authorizes $305 billion over five years for highways, transit and rail, including Amtrak. Although many of us would have preferred higher funding levels closer to the Administration's GROW America Act, the conference agreement provides an increase in funding of $12.8 billion above the House bill and $26.8 billion in guaranteed funding above FY15. Every state will get an increase in transportation funding. New York State will get an additional $1.5 billion above current levels in highway and transit formula funding over the life of the bill, of which an estimated additional $500 million will go to projects in New York City. The funding increase allows us to preserve these core programs, and still invest in new key areas. The bill provides $4.5 billion for the new freight program, originally created in the House bill, for large scale multimodal projects critical to our regional and national economy. This was a key recommendation of the Freight Panel that I co-chaired with Mr. Duncan, and I am very proud that it is included in the final Conference Report. For over a decade, we have made various attempts to address major freight projects that are too big or complex for states to address on their own. The PNRS program that we created in SAFETEA-LU was meant to address such projects, but was divvied up into many, relatively small, earmarks. In MAP-21, the PNRS program was reauthorized, but subject to appropriations, and never received any funding. This bill finally gets it right, and provides guaranteed, dedicated funding to address goods movement throughout the country. In addition to the grant program for large multimodal projects, the bill includes a new freight formula program to the States passed as part of the Senate bill, and it requires strategic planning at the state and federal level. All of these programs together will bring about unprecedented resources to fund freight projects that are long overdue and critical to our economy. It is a ground breaking achievement, and one of the things that sets this bill apart from its predecessors. The bill increases funding for transit, including all the major programs that benefit New York. The Conference Report not only restores, but increases, funding for the High Density State program under Section 5340 that provides approximately $100 million for transit projects all across New York State. The bill includes a 20% increase in funding for the State of Good Repair program, and it increases funding for Capital Investment Grants. The conference report does not include language restricting the ability of transit agencies to use other transportation programs, such as CMAQ and TIFIA, to fill the gap in federal funding for transit New Starts, which Mr. Lipinski and I fought against in the House bill. The bill maintains the historic 80/20 split between highway and transit funding, and it provides enough finding to create a robust Bus & Bus Facilities grant program that will benefit all fifty states while dedicating resources to the programs upon which our urban centers rely. I am also pleased that the Conference Report authorizes $10.2 billion over five years for intercity passenger rail, including $8 billion for Amtrak, and dedicates resources for improvements along the Northeast Corridor. The bill includes language to help the Gateway project compete for future funding, and it authorizes a new consolidated grant program to help railroads make safety and reliability improvements. Additionally, the bill dedicates $200 million to help commuter railroads implement Positive Train Control, and it increases the liability limit on rail passenger accidents to $295 million retroactively to help cover claims for those killed or injured in the Amtrak derailment outside of Philadelphia in May of this year. Overall, this is a balanced bill that will provide certainty and reliability for transportation agencies over the next five years. It would have been my preference to provide significantly more funding to address the major backlog of investment needs on our roads, bridges, transit and rail, but given the political reality this Conference Report is something we can all be proud to support. It increases funding for core programs, addresses new critical areas, and although it includes a few objectionable provisions, it is generally free of major poison pills. I commend Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and my fellow conferees, for all their hard work in finally bringing a long term transportation bill to fruition. I urge all my colleagues to vote for this Conference Report. Thank you.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this irresponsible bill that would effectively block the settlement of Syrian refugees in the United States for years. The shocking and tragic events in Paris have touched people all over the world and strengthened our resolve to defeat the terrorists who are responsible for these heinous acts, for bombing a Russian airliner, and for carrying out deadly bombings in Beirut. But defeating terrorism should not mean slamming the door in the faces of those who are fleeing the terrorists. That is why I am appalled by the actions of this House and by some of the words of my colleagues today. Mr. Speaker, the United States has always been and should always be a place of refuge. Remember, the Syrian refugees are running away from ISIS. They are running away from war, from terror. The are its victims. To stop thousands of desperate people who are fleeing unspeakable violence is unconscionable. We might as well take down the Statute of Liberty. Countries with much smaller populations like Lebanon and Turkey have agreed to take 1 million refugees or more. Even France just announced they are increasing the number of Syrian refugees they are accepting. We in the United States are talking about a mere 10,000. These refugees are subject to an extensive vetting process which can take up to 24 months. But the real danger America faces is that ISIS, through its propaganda, can radicalize people already here and inspire them to attack the United States from within. In Paris we saw that several of the attackers were European nationals who could enter the United States without being vetted, so it is ridiculous to assert that by denying access to refugees, we would be making America safer. We face a choice that will echo through history. In 1924, a racist, xenophobic, and anti-Semitic Congress passed legislation slamming the door shut on Jewish, Italian, Greek, and Eastern European immigrants. The Almanac of American Politics said that, if it weren't for the 1924 Immigration Act, perhaps 2 million of the 6 million Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust would have been living safely in the United States instead. Back then we shut our doors to people in desperate need. We must not do so again. We must not let ourselves be guided by irrational fear. We have a moral obligation and, for those who care, a religious obligation to extend a hand to those in need. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Lipinski-Nadler-Dold Amendment to restore the ability of state and local agencies to use various transportation programs for transit projects. Under current law, highway and transit projects can receive up to 80% in federal funding. When it comes to transit Capital Investment Grants (also known as New Starts and Small Starts), it has become common practice for transit agencies to receive less than 80% from that account. Agencies often receive closer to 50%, in part because New Starts is funded through general revenue in the appropriations bill, funding is stretched thin, and agencies ``overmatch'' to submit more competitive applications. Transit agencies are currently able to use CMAQ, STP, and TIFIA, to help fill the gap between whatever they receive in transit New Start funding and the 80% federal funding allowed under the law. H.R. 3763 does two things that harm New Starts projects. It codifies a reduction in the transit New Start federal share to 50%, and it prohibits the use of other federal transportation dollars to fill the gap. Nothing in the bill reduces the amount these states and localities will receive, so this provision does not reduce the cost of the bill, or shift funding from one state to another. It simply ties the hands of local agencies and makes it harder, and potentially more expensive, to complete transit projects. The amendment we are offering today will restore the ability of local agencies to use CMAQ and TIFIA funding for New Starts. The amendment will also restore an 80% federal share for Small Starts and Core Capacity projects, which can continue to use CMAQ, STP and TIFIA funding toward project costs. This amendment is a compromise that is the result of Chairman Shuster's commitment to work with us after we raised it during markup in committee. Under this compromise, New Starts remain at 50%, and will not be able to use STP funds. We still object to these restrictions, but the use of CMAQ and TIFIA to fill the gap is restored. We will continue to fight in conference to restore STP funding for New Starts, and to ensure that highway and transit projects are treated equally. I thank the Chairman for working with us on this compromise, and for agreeing to correct at least part of the problem. I urge all of my colleagues to support the amendment, and to join with us in continuing to address this issue in the final product enacted into law.