Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Surface Transportation Reauthorization bill. I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for developing a bipartisan bill that is generally balanced and makes significant improvements in some key areas. I am concerned that the funding levels in the bill are simply not high enough. We have an almost $1 trillion backlog on our highways, bridges, rail, and transit system, yet this bill provides flat funding of just $325 billion over 6 years. Finding bipartisan consensus on revenue is challenging, but I am confident that a majority in Congress would support funding higher-than-baseline levels with small increases for inflation. Despite the funding challenges, the bill makes a major improvement by creating the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects program, which will provide guaranteed dedicated funding for large- scale multimodal projects critical to our regional and national economy. This was a key recommendation of the freight panel on which I was ranking member with Mr. Duncan as chairman. It is essential that we assist projects that are too big or complex for States to address on their own. We made some progress in SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21, but this bill finally gets it right and corrects decades of neglect by providing guaranteed funding for multimodal freight projects. There is an aggregate cap of $500 million on non-highway projects, which equals about 11 percent of the program. This seems arbitrarily low, given that 25 to 30 percent of the bill is funded through general revenue. We should let all projects compete and not dilute the selection process with caps and set-asides. But the freight program created in this bill is a groundbreaking achievement. I thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for their commitment. On transit, there are good provisions in the bill on transit worker safety and workforce development. I oppose dropping the New Starts Federal share from 80 percent to 50 percent. There is a similar provision dropping the Federal share to 50 percent in the freight grant program. This is a developing trend that is shifting the burden to States and localities and punishing them for our failure to adequately invest in infrastructure. There are provisions restricting the use for various transportation programs for transit projects, which we hope to correct through the amendment process later today. There are some objectionable provisions regarding environmental streamlining and motor carrier safety, but I am pleased that the bill does not broadly increase truck size or weights. I will oppose any amendments to add such dangerous poison pills. Overall, this bill is balanced, and I support moving it forward. I thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for working with us to defend and improve the bill as it moves through the process.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Ribble amendment to allow heavier and bigger trucks on the Nation's highways. Every time we move a transportation bill, proponents of bigger trucks on behalf of certain industries try to weaken the restrictions Congress has put in place to protect the safety of the traveling public and to reduce wear and tear on the highways. According to DOT, there is an $800 billion backlog of investment needs on highways and bridges, including $480 billion in critical repair work. The underlying bill does not provide any increase in funding. If this amendment passes, heavier trucks will further damage our roadways and add to the backlog, burdening our transportation agencies. In MAP-21, rather than consider an increase in truck weight, we required DOT to conduct a study. The DOT found there is insufficient data to support an increase in truck size or weight. But we do know that bigger trucks are damaging and dangerous. The DOT study found that 91,000-pound trucks would damage thousands of bridges and divert more than 2\1/2\ million tons of freight from rail to truck, further congesting our roadways, further damaging our roadways, and further contaminating our air, since trucks are three times less energy efficient and more emissions-polluting than rail. It is also well known that heavier trucks aren't safe. In 2013, there were over 134,000 accidents involving large trucks, resulting in 4,000 fatalities. The DOT study found that 91,000-pound trucks resulted in a 47 percent higher crash rate when compared to 80,000-pound trucks in State testing. That is why the public is overwhelmingly opposed to bigger trucks. That is why the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs' Association, and other law enforcement organizations oppose this proposed increase in truck weight. That is why we should oppose this increase in truck weight and this amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, despite its puffed-up name, this bill has nothing to do with protecting women's health or safety. The bill the Republicans pass today would cut off access to health care for millions of American families who rely on Medicaid. This bill would cut off Medicaid reimbursement for any service, Planned Parenthood or any doctor or hospital or clinic or local health center that performs or is involved in any way with abortions. If this bill passes, a woman seeking prenatal care for a planned pregnancy could suddenly be cut off from her doctor if that doctor also provides abortion services or even referral to abortion services. A child with a life-threatening illness could be turned away from his hospital because the hospital chair expressed views supportive of abortion. A senior citizen with a chronic illness could suddenly find his or her prescription lapsed with no way to refill it because his or her doctor is somehow involved with abortion. My colleagues continue to insist that this bill won't interrupt care, that these families, children, and seniors will just see different doctors, will go to different hospitals. How many of my colleagues have ever been on Medicaid? How many of them have ever been turned away by a doctor or told they have to wait months for an appointment because the doctor simply cannot afford to accept any more Medicaid patients? This bill would dramatically worsen the shortage of Medicaid doctors and lengthen wait times for patients, putting more people at risk and increasing healthcare costs in the long term. If their overarching goal is dismantling Medicaid as we know it, this bill is a strong first step. If we really want to talk about a culture of life, we should be bringing bills to the floor to encourage more doctors to serve in high- need areas to give every child access to the highest quality health care. We should be talking about increasing funding for WIC and SNAP to make sure parents, babies, and children aren't going to bed hungry at night. We should be talking about expanding education programs that target low-income students. We should be talking about funding public housing programs to provide stability to families. We should be talking about lowering student loan debt to ensure parents can give their kids every opportunity without a crushing burden of debt. What we should not be doing is cutting doctors and hospitals and clinics and community healthcare centers out of Medicaid and putting more lives at risk. This bill is just another blatant attempt to intimidate doctors and hospitals into ending abortion services. Under the guise of promoting life, this bill puts more lives at risk. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, God bless the United States Supreme Court for its Roe v. Wade decision that liberated the women of this country to make their own decisions, to exercise their own consciences in the most intensely private matter of whether they should carry a pregnancy to term. Now, I recognize, of course, that there are those who hold the religious conviction that a one-celled organism--one cell, two cells-- is a fully formed human being. They are entitled to religious conviction. They are not entitled to impose that religious conviction on all the women of this country who may not share it. That is essentially the abortion debate. We are not debating abortion today, although some people would like to. We are debating this ridiculous Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act. Fifteen years ago, I stood on this floor and supported the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. I said it was unnecessary. It simply repeated existing law. It has always been the law that, if an infant is born, whether that birth was intentional or not is irrelevant, that that is a person. If you kill that infant, you are guilty of murder or manslaughter, as the case may be. You certainly may not do so intentionally. The Born-Alive Infant Protection Act did not change that. It just added superfluous language to the law. Its only purpose was to try to paint people who support the right to choose and supporters of infanticide. So we said, no, it is silly because it doesn't add anything to the law. It simply duplicates the existing law, but we will support it so we cannot be slandered that way. Now we have this bill, which does essentially two things. One, it repeats, in different language, exactly the same provisions from 15 years ago. It doesn't change the law that we enacted 15 years ago, and it doesn't change the law that preexisted in every State of the Union. If you kill a child, it is murder, period. Dr. Gosnell, I would point out, is in jail for life because he committed multiple murders. Nobody, but nobody, supports what he does and nobody, except in some of their fantasies that Mr. Franks says, thinks that Planned Parenthood or anybody else supports such actions. This bill, however, cannot be supported because it does one harmful thing. This bill says that the born-alive child must be given the same standard of care whether he is born alive in an attempted abortion or from a regular birth. That is already the law. Of course, it is the law. It ought to be the law. It must be the law. It always has been the law. What it also does is it says that, as soon as the doctor has given that child the proper standard of care, he must rush him to the hospital, regardless of whether that might be good or bad for the child, regardless of the standard of care, regardless of whether the nearby hospital has neonatal intensive care units.

Mr. NADLER. Of course, everybody associated with the doctor, under existing law, has the duty of giving the best possible medical care under any circumstances. That may be to transport the baby to the hospital. It may be that the baby is too frail to transport. But along comes this bill that says: We don't care about the real situation that doctor faces with that infant. We know how to practice medicine in every situation--we, in Congress--so we are going to say it must be brought to the hospital even if that might kill the child. It is just stupid, and that is why this bill must be opposed, not because it changes the standard of law or has anything to do with born- alive infants, but because it mandates that a child be brought to the hospital when medical care might indicate that that child in that situation should not be brought to the hospital. It may kill children. That is why we must oppose this bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Going forward, it remains vital that we continue to pursue ways to further guarantee the security of the United States, of Israel, and of our other allies in the Middle East. This will require strict and diligent oversight of the implementation of the agreement, maintaining Israel's qualitative military edge, and countering Iran's support for terrorism and other destabilizing conduct. We must be ready to take action against Iran's nefarious behavior, and Iran must know that the United States will never allow it to pose a nuclear threat to the region and the world.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution of approval of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Throughout this debate, there have been accusations questioning the motives and loyalties of Members in making this decision. It is precisely because I believe this agreement is in the interest of the United States and because I have been a strong supporter of Israel my entire life that I am supporting the Iran nuclear agreement. This must not be a vote of politics but of conscience. I, for one, could not live with myself if I voted in a way that I believe would put the lives of Americans and Israelis at greater risk of an Iranian nuclear bomb. My priority and overriding objective in assessing this agreement has been to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. The interests of the United States and of Israel in this respect are identical. In addition to constituting an existential threat to Israel, a nuclear- armed Iran would make Iran's conventional threats more dangerous and difficult to counter and pose a greater danger to the United States, to the region, and to the world. The question before us is not whether this is a good deal. The question is which of the two options available to us--supporting or rejecting the deal--is more likely to avert a nuclear-armed Iran. I have concluded, after examining all the arguments, that supporting the Iran nuclear agreement gives us the better chance of preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. The agreement will shut Iran's pathways to developing the necessary fissionable material for a nuclear bomb for at least 15 years. The inspection and verification procedures against illicit plutonium production or uranium enrichment are airtight. The questions that have been raised about inspection procedures--the so-called side deals, the alleged self-inspection--do not relate to the central issue of production of fissionable material. And without fissionable material, you cannot make a bomb. Even after 15 years, when some of the restrictions will be eased, we would still know instantly about any attempt to make bomb materials because the inspectors and the electronic and photographic surveillance will still be there. The options available to a future President for stopping Iran then would be better than the options available now if the deal is rejected because we would have more access, instant intelligence, and more knowledge of the Iranian program. The argument that if we reject the deal, we can force Iran back to the negotiating table and obtain a better deal is a fantasy. It is not a viable alternative. The other countries that have joined us in multilateral sanctions against Iran have made it clear that they will drop their sanctions if we reject the deal; and American sanctions, by themselves, have been proven ineffective in coercing Iran. We must be very clear that, if necessary, the United States will use military force to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb; but the odds of that being necessary are significantly less with approval of this deal than with rejection of the agreement.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment would exempt any rule pertaining to nuclear reactor safety standards from the new onerous approval process created by the bill. In other words, my amendment would allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC, to continue to issue rules under the current system, thereby making it easier to protect Americans from nuclear disaster. Today's bill, in the name of so-called reform, adds new procedural hoops that agencies and departments must go through before regulation can be issued, including requiring a joint resolution of approval for every major rule. The result is simply to impede, obstruct, and delay the attempt of government to accomplish one of its most basic functions: to protect the health and welfare of its citizens. Not surprisingly, groups who care about protecting public health, safety, and environment, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, oppose this bill. According to the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, which represents a coalition of many such groups, this bill ``is nothing more than a back-door way to gut enforcement of existing legislation and future safeguards that big-money interests do not want. It would force Congress to refight its previous debates, wasting time and money, and paralyzing vital agency work.'' Americans should rightfully be scared that this bill will put their health and safety at risk. One example that highlights this fact is the subject of this amendment: nuclear power. The risks and dangers of nuclear power were made all the more real by the nuclear disaster in Japan at Fukushima 4 years ago. We all watched in horror when that country was devastated by the earthquake and resulting tsunami. That disaster then caused its own disaster: the meltdown of three reactors at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. That led to the release of radioactive isotopes, the creation of a 20-kilometer exclusion zone around the power plant, and the displacement of 156,000 people. Inside the evacuation zone all farming has been abandoned. In 2011, Virginia was struck by a relatively rare, but strong, earthquake, felt up and down the eastern seaboard. It caused a nuclear power plant near the epicenter to have to go offline. For me, this concern hits close to home. A nuclear power plant, Indian Point, about which many people have had concerns for years, lies just less than 40 miles away from my New York City district. There are 20 million people living within a 50-mile radius around the plant, the same radius used by the NRC as the basis for the evacuation zone recommended after the Fukushima disaster. Indian Point also sits near two earthquake fault lines and, according to the NRC, is the most likely nuclear power plant in the country to experience core damage because of an earthquake. To keep my constituents and, indeed, all Americans safe, I am offering this amendment today. Because of the catastrophes that can result from disasters, be they natural or manmade, at nuclear power plants, prevention of meltdowns is the key. Since Fukushima, the NRC has issued new rules designed to upgrade power plants to withstand severe events like earthquakes and to have enough backup power so as to avoid a meltdown for a significant length of time. The NRC must have the ability and flexibility to issue new regulations to safeguard the health and well-being of all Americans. However, H.R. 427 is intentionally designed so new and vital regulations will likely never be put in place. We cannot permit the NRC to never be able to create new regulations. Therefore, I urge you to support the Nadler amendment to exempt the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from the onerous new requirements for rulemaking imposed by this bill. In that way, the NRC would have the ability to safeguard public health and safety, as it should. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this bill prohibits any major regulation from going into effect unless both the House and Senate pass and the President signs a joint resolution of approval within 70 legislative days. If the President and the Congress fail to approve the regulation within the timeframe, it cannot take effect and a subsequent joint resolution for the same regulation cannot be considered for the remainder of the Congress. Because of the unrealistic approval deadlines and the requirement that both Houses approve each and every major rule, as well as the President, this bill would effectively prevent the promulgation of many critical protections that ensure Americans' health, safety, and economic well-being. The proponents say they support regulation when it makes sense. But this is a vast government. It is a vast economy. It is a vast socioeconomic system. To demand that Congress pass in both Houses within 70 days and the President sign a resolution of approval for every one of the thousands of regulations means most will never be considered. That is why this amendment, to say that at least where people's lives are at stake in large numbers, where safety regulations to prevent nuclear disasters or to mitigate their effects are in question, that it not be subject to the same restrictive requirements that this rule would put into place, which would say that most regulations would never get adequately considered. In closing, I want to say that this amendment is absolutely necessary if we want to make sure that the next time there is an earthquake, God forbid, or some other disaster, or even just a power failure, that a nuclear reactor doesn't have a terrible situation, that we don't get a nuclear meltdown, and that if we do, regulations are in place to safeguard people's lives and health. I think if we are going to pass this terrible bill, the least we can do is exempt nuclear safety from it. I urge all Members to support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3009, which would make communities across the country less safe from crime. This legislation would withhold needed Federal funding from cities that prohibit their law enforcement authorities from collecting information on a person's immigration status or that have policies restricting the disclosure of this information to other governmental entities. Many cities, including New York, have made the reasonable determination that they will not question victims of crime or witnesses to a crime about their immigration status. They believe it is counterproductive to make them afraid to cooperate with law enforcement. But this bill says that we in Congress know better, and, in the name of protecting public safety, we will deny such cities the funds that they need to protect the public safety. Many cities think that their communities are safer when a victim of domestic violence feels comfortable asking the police for protection from their abuser without fear of deportation. They believe that witnesses to a murder ought to step forward and assist law enforcement in tracking down the perpetrator without fear that they will face consequences of their own if they step forward. They think that good policing depends on building trust with their residents and that striking fear among immigrants that they may be deported if they report a crime makes everyone less safe. Punishing residents of cities whose officials have made such decisions is both unfair and unwise. New York City alone could lose $57 million under this legislation. This would not only punish the public officials who set these policies and the undocumented residents in their communities, but it would punish all innocent people who depend on these Federal resources to protect public safety. My heart is with the Steinle family, and we all share their outrage at Kate's senseless murder. But this bill and other attempts to punish so-called sanctuary cities would do nothing to address the issues that might have prevented her death. Instead of taking positive steps to improve communication between Federal, State, and local authorities, this bill simply demonizes immigrants and perpetuates the myth that they are more prone to commit a crime than is the native-born population. This legislation might fit comfortably in Donald Trump's campaign platform, but it has no business on the House floor. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, we must not display the Confederate battle flag in any Federal park or cemetery or building. The Confederate flag represents racism, slavery, and treason, waging war against the United States, killing American soldiers. We are told it represents the Southern heritage. It does represent part of the Southern, of the American heritage, a shameful part: the defense of slavery, of owning people body and soul, of the doctrine of racial superiority, and the practice of racial oppression. Other countries and peoples have shameful parts of their heritages. Germany, for example, has a Nazi heritage. The Germans are properly ashamed of it. They prohibit, by law, the display of Nazi imagery. The First Amendment won't let us go that far, but we should not honor the shameful parts of our history. As we continue the ongoing struggle to eradicate racism from American life, we must no longer honor racism and treason by allowing the Confederate flag on any Federal property.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on July 12, 1940, six-year-old Stefan Rozenfeld arrived on the shores of the United States of America with his mother and father, after a long and perilous journey from Poland. This week, he will celebrate the 75th anniversary of his arrival. His journey, albeit encompassing a narrative far too familiar for many American Jews, represents a remarkable story of survival and courage. When they fled their native Poland in January 1940, Stefan Rozenfeld and his mother escaped certain death at the hands of the Nazis. Only weeks after they departed their home in Lodz, the Jews of Lodz were rounded up and crammed into a ghetto that served as a staging ground for deportations to Nazi extermination camps. The Rozenfelds made their way to Belgium, where they reunited with Stefan's father and secured American immigration visas. However, unable to obtain passage to the United States before the Nazi invasion of Belgium in May 1940, they narrowly evaded the Nazis once again, securing safety in France. But when France capitulated to the Nazis in June, 1940, the Rozenfelds were trapped. Denied entrance to their last two remaining hopes, Portugal and Spain, vulnerable and without anywhere else to turn, Stefan and his family seemed destined to fall into the Nazis' murderous hands. Portugal, neutral throughout World War II, had closed its borders to Jewish refugees. It was only the actions taken by an exceedingly courageous diplomat, Aristides de Sousa Mendes, the Portuguese consul in Bordeaux, which permitted the Rozenfelds, along with tens of thousands of other refugees, to successfully flee the Nazis. Despite a government directive strictly prohibiting the issuing of visas to Jews, Sousa Mendes instructed his vice-consuls to issue Portuguese visas to anyone who petitioned for one, regardless of nationality or religion. Yet, in saving as many as 30,000 lives, Sousa Mendes sacrificed his own career and livelihood. Put on trial by the Portuguese government, the formerly high-ranking diplomat was convicted and forced into retirement, tarnishing his reputation and leaving him impoverished. While Sousa Mendes was unjustly blacklisted and punished, the Rozenfelds were able to escape to Portugal and then to the United States, where they landed in Hoboken, New Jersey on July 12, 1940. Settling in Queens, New York, Stefan's father started a company that dubbed and translated foreign films for American audiences. The company became an important component of the American film industry, most notably dubbing the Vittorio De Sica film, ``Two Women,'' which starred Sophia Loren. After graduating from Stuyvesant High School in downtown Manhattan and Perdue University in Indiana, Stefan joined his father's company. In 1958, he married Linda Schoengold, a childhood friend he had known since he was eight years old and with whom he had four children: Julie, Laurie, Paul, and Leah. After raising the children in New Rochelle, where Linda volunteered in the community and worked to encourage voter participation, Stefan and Linda today live in active retirement, yet make sure to return every summer to Pine Lake Park, where they first met. Stefan maintains his lifelong passion for classical music through his extensive collection of recordings and the series of concerts he and Linda host for friends. Despite having faced incredible adversity, the Rozenfeld family, with the help of the heroic Aristides de Sousa Mendes, survived and managed to thrive, embodying the very ethos of the American dream. After Aristides de Sousa Mendes died in disgrace in 1954, his name was largely forgotten. Many of the refugees whose lives he had singlehandedly saved were scattered around the world. Yet after decades of hard work by his children, and with support from Congress, the Portuguese diplomat eventually came to be known internationally as a hero. Named by Israel in 1966 as Righteous Among the Nations, he would later be honored in his native Portugal, where Portugal's president Mario Soares declared him ``Portugal's greatest hero of the twentieth century.'' In 2004, after reparations were paid to his family and his name restored, celebrations were held in over thirty nations to commemorate Sousa Mendes on the fiftieth anniversary of his death. Aristides de Sousa Mendes recorded the names and visa numbers of the individuals he granted visas to in a ledger book which now lies in the Portuguese Foreign Ministry in Lisbon. I recently viewed images of Sousa Mendes' list, and, although to some it may appear only as names and numbers, to me it represents promise and hope for the Jewish people and the heroism of one exceptionally brave man. The story of the Rozenfelds' flight from Nazi persecution, the righteous actions taken by Aristides de Sousa Mendes, and the Rozenfelds' successful passage and settlement in America is important to recognize. I am deeply grateful for Sousa Mendes and his actions, which allowed Stefan and thousands of other refugees to escape the evils of the Nazis and live a life of freedom and promise. I am pleased to be able to share the story of the Rozenfelds' perseverance and courage, of Sousa Mendes' heroic actions, of a case of the United States fulfilling its role as a haven, affording refugees welcome and freedom, and of the refugees contributing their energy and industry to the United States, with the House of Representatives today. I wish Stefan Rozenfeld and his family well as they celebrate this historic anniversary.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express the profound hope that, in its upcoming decision, the Supreme Court will strike down laws that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying and to ensure that all States recognize lawful marriages performed elsewhere. These four cases--Obergefell v. Hodges, Tanco v. Haslam, DeBoer v. Snyder, and Bourke v. Beshear--are an opportunity for the Court to end legal discrimination against committed gay and lesbian couples and their children and to reestablish marriage as a civil right, one that is ``fundamental to our very existence and survival,'' as it was called by Justice Warren in Loving v. Virginia in 1967. As a country, we can no longer allow State governments to burden their citizens by refusing to grant marriage licenses based on whom they love. Since my earliest days in the New York State Assembly, I have fought alongside the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community for equality under the law. I spoke out in opposition when, in 1996, Congress, for the first time, created a Federal definition of marriage with the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, solely for the purpose of excluding gays and lesbians from receiving Federal marriage benefits; and I have long carried legislation to repeal this insidious law, from offering the Respect for Marriage Act to leading the congressional amicus briefs in both Windsor and the current marriage equality cases before the Court. Yet even a full repeal of DOMA would still leave individuals vulnerable to continued State discrimination, which is why there must be a guaranteed right to access to benefits of marriage regardless of where a couple may reside. When my constituent and friend Edith Windsor began dating Thea Spyer in 1965 and accepted her proposal in 1967, she was not thinking about how the government would view her relationship. She was thinking about the joy and happiness that comes from beginning to shape a life with a partner she loved. Forty years after that proposal, they were able to legally marry in Canada, outside of the country and State they called home. No one in a free and just country should be forced to leave their home, traveling away from friends and family across State lines, in order to get married. Nor should anyone be faced with the humiliation of being denied government benefits, the tragedy of being barred from a partner's hospital bedside, or the indignity of being refused any of the other thousands of benefits that come with marriage that millions of Americans access every day because a State refuses to recognize their otherwise lawful marriage. Denying recognition of same-sex relationships signals to the couple, their family, and all others that their bond in love is less deserving of respect, harming the individuals and creating divisions within the fabric of our society. After Thea's death, Edith bravely fought all the way to the Supreme Court, in the United States v. Windsor, to establish what so many of us have known for decades: that laws that deny recognition of legal same- sex marriages serve no legitimate purpose, stigmatize and shame American families, and are a deprivation of the equal liberty guarantee of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment. It is time for the long arc of history to continue to bend towards justice and for similarly discriminatory State laws to be struck down once and for all. Should the Court rule for equality, there will be no losers. No one will be harmed by the granting and recognition of same-sex marriages. Those claiming otherwise are either promoting discredited claims about the dangers of gays and lesbians or falsely believe they have the right to involve themselves in the private affairs of others. More than 70 percent of Americans already live in jurisdictions that provide for same-sex marriages. It is unconscionable that anyone would propose to continue to deny universal access and recognition, as well as the associated safety and security, to these families. The Court has the immediate responsibility to expand upon its decision in Windsor to ensure that State laws comply with established basic constitutional protections and that all Americans are given the equal respect and support they deserve. Much as in Loving v. Virginia, which also rolled back government- enforced marriage discrimination based on race, outdated prejudices and intolerance cannot be allowed to rule the day. It is time that we make the Constitution's promise of equality a reality for gay and lesbian couples throughout the Nation. Regardless of the forthcoming decision, we have a long way to go to ensure full equality for LGBT Americans who can still be fired from their jobs, denied housing, and turned away from stores simply for being who they are. We must work together to pass comprehensive nondiscrimination legislation to protect these vulnerable Americans.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, and I commend the sponsors, Mr. McGovern and Ms. Lee, for introducing it. And I do so not because I necessarily think we ought to withdraw all our troops in 6 months. Maybe we should. I am not sure of that yet. But I do know that we are waging a war that is probably unconstitutional, as we did in Libya. Since World War II, we have time after time gotten away from the constitutional command that Congress shall declare war. The Framers said war is too important to allow one person--the President--to decide on it. But we have gotten away from that. We got away from it because we didn't have time. That was the excuse. With the missiles flying over the poles, you couldn't call Congress into session. But then came Iraq. We had a resolution for the use of military force. Then came Libya. No excuse. Plenty of time to consult with NATO. Plenty of time to consult with Arab countries. No time to consult with Congress. I believe that was an unconstitutional--and a foolish, as it turns out--but an unconstitutional use of force. Mr. Speaker, now we have this force in the Middle East, in Iraq and in Syria. We are getting more and more into a war. I am not commenting on the intelligence of that right now. It may be that we have no choice but to fight ISIS. Maybe, as the Republicans seem to want without saying so, we should have a lot of boots on the ground, because that is what they are really saying when they say the President is doing it halfway. Or maybe the bigger threat is Iran, and we should turn our attentions to Iran instead of tacitly allying with Iran against ISIS. Or maybe we should say it is up to the Middle Eastern people--they can handle it--and pull our troops out altogether. That is the debate we ought to have. And what are the limits of our commitment, if any? That ought to be debated in Congress. Congress ought to make these decisions in the name of the American people, not the President. Now, because we haven't had an AUMF on the floor, we must have this resolution.

Mr. NADLER. This resolution is not intended to force a pullout in 6 months. It is intended to force a debate in Congress in 6 months. Let us get back to our constitutional tradition. Let Congress do its job, and if the President submitted an AUMF that is too strong or too weak, let's bring up a different one. But it is our job to make those decisions. It is our job to stand before our constituents to say we believe this is important enough to go to war with ISIS or with Iran, to send more troops there or not, and here is why and here are the limitations, we shouldn't have boots on the ground or we should. Mr. Speaker, these are our decisions to make, and our decisions we shouldn't be able to avoid. That is what this is about. We have had 10 years of war, 13 years of war. The 2001 AUMF cannot possibly be relevant now. We thought we were voting for 3 weeks of strikes against bases in Afghanistan. The 2002 AUMF was to topple Saddam Hussein. He is gone. I didn't think that was a good idea, but it is over. The consequences are not over. We ought to debate this. We ought to debate an AUMF. We ought to pass one or not. That is our decision, but let's pass this resolution that supports that decision on us.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor D. Edward (``Ted'') Smyth on his retirement from McGraw Hill Financial, following a distinguished career at the highest levels of government and business. In 2009, Ted joined the company as its Executive Vice President for Corporate Affairs, overseeing worldwide marketing, communications, government affairs and corporate responsibility. During his tenure, Ted helped lead the company's transformation into a focused provider of credit ratings, benchmarks and analytics to the financial marketplace, with marquee brands that include Standard & Poor's, Platts and J.D. Power. He also lent his expertise in corporate governance to the company's Board of Directors and served as a trusted counselor to two chief executive officers: Harold W. (``Terry'') McGraw, III, and more recently, Douglas L. Peterson. Ted came to McGraw Hill Financial after more than two decades at H.J. Heinz Company, where he held the dual roles of Senior Vice President for Corporate and Government Affairs and Chief Administrative Officer. In his time at Heinz, Ted created world-class communications and government relations functions and chaired both the Heinz Global Communications Committee and the Heinz Crisis and Issues Committee, reporting directly to Bill Johnson, Heinz's former chairman, president and CEO. Ted also built and sustained the company's talent management process, designed to attract and retain the best minds in the food industry. Prior to joining Heinz in 1988, Ted spent 15 years as a senior diplomat for Ireland, serving in embassies and offices in Geneva, Portugal, Washington, D.C. and London. Among the many highlights of his diplomatic career, Ted served as a delegate to the 36-nation Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) in Switzerland and was a special advisor to the Irish Prime Minister in seeking a peaceful resolution to the Northern Ireland conflict. Ted also was a member of the Secretariat of the New Ireland Forum and was Press Secretary for the Irish government in the United Kingdom. A talented writer and sought-after speaker, Ted has authored numerous articles on public policy, has participated in leading conferences worldwide and has contributed thoughtful bylines to several leading newspapers. He lends his considerable leadership skills to a number of organizations, currently serving as a Director of Glucksman Ireland House at New York University, a member of the Global Studies Program of the Center for International Studies at the University of Pittsburgh, a trustee of the Clinton Institute in University College, Dublin, and a trustee of Marlboro College, Vermont. He also is a former Director of the Hain Celestial Company, the Africa America Institute and the Ireland Funds. Ted graduated with honors in History and Political Science from Trinity College in Dublin. Mr. Speaker, apart from his countless accomplishments, Ted Smyth is a true gentleman and a friend to all who know him. I am honored to ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Ted for his many contributions and congratulating him on his remarkable career.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. All the trade agreements since NAFTA have been sold on the same propaganda, that they will increase our exports and jobs, yet the results have always been the same: they have multiplied our imports, ballooned our trade deficits, hemorrhaged our jobs, and depressed our wages. Now we are asked to vote for a fast-track agreement that will say we cannot amend any trade agreements, only vote them up or down, even if they, like their predecessors, lack any means of protecting our workers from competition with workers who are paid 30 cents an hour and are assassinated if they try to form a union. We know there will be a provision for private corporate tribunals that can invalidate and render unenforceable American laws and regulations. It is our constitutional duty to regulate foreign commerce and trade agreements, not take them on a take-it-or-leave-it basis from the executive branch. It is our constitutional duty to protect the American sovereignty against foreign companies invalidating our laws through private corporate tribunals. We must vote ``no'' on fast track to allow Congress to do its job to see that the next trade agreement doesn't hemorrhage our jobs, doesn't ignore currency manipulation, and doesn't invalidate our consumer, labor, and environmental laws. We must say ``no.''

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Trade Act of 2015 (H.R. 1314), which would ``fast-track'' trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), by allowing them to pass Congress by a straight up or down vote without any possibility of amendment. Ever since NAFTA in 1993, these so-called free trade agreements have all been sold to the American people on the same propaganda; that they will boost exports and increase jobs. Yet the results have always been the same. Although we might increase exports somewhat, one of our biggest exports has been American jobs. Any claims to the contrary are not worth the paper they are written on. For starters, these are not really free trade agreements. A true free trade agreement would consist of no more than a few pages simply listing the dates on which tariffs for various commodities would be eliminated. In fact, these agreements consist of thousands of pages of negotiated provisions, which history demonstrates have benefited multi- national companies while destroying millions of American jobs and depressing American wage levels. Without adequate labor, environmental and human rights standards, our trading partners can and do pay their workers 30 cents per hour, make their goods cheaper by dumping waste products in the river, and murder workers who try to join a union. No wonder factories in the United States close and move abroad. No wonder our balance of trade becomes calamitous. We are always told that the next trade agreement will have better protections, but that has never been the case. None of the so-called protections have been enforceable or enforced. So it is particularly troubling that the text of the TPP is still classified. Members of Congress can look at it, but cannot take notes, cannot make copies, and cannot talk about what they have seen. What are they afraid people might discover? If it is true that the TPP includes enforceable provisions related to labor and environmental standards, why not make it public? Why not share what is supposedly so critical in this trade agreement with the American people? The fact that the TPP is secret is obnoxious. Most of what we know about it has come from leaks that indicate that the TPP, just like its predecessors, will simply help multi-national corporations and further impoverish the lower and middle classes here at home. For example, the TPP includes a chapter on Investment-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) that would allow multi-national corporations to sue state and local governments, or the Federal government, in private tribunals by alleging that American laws or regulations limit their profits. Companies like Phillip Morris could sue for compensation for loss of sales because of cigarette labeling laws. Companies could sue to void enforcement of minimum wage, or factory, safety or consumer laws. According to the USTR, the TPP will also include new rules to ``ensure fair competition between state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and private companies.'' This could lead to privatization of a variety of public services. And just this week, the House voted to repeal our Country of Origin Labeling law after the WTO ruled that it discriminated against Canada and Mexico, raising even more questions about the consequences of these trade agreements on the sovereignty of our nation. These questions are only the tip of the iceberg, and highlight the need for an open and honest review of the TPP rather than blindly facilitating its passage. The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate foreign commerce. We must not cede that authority to the Executive Branch and abdicate our responsibility to protect the public interest. If the TPP is as beneficial as its supporters have claimed, it should be able to withstand scrutiny in the light of day and a full debate in Congress. But we don't have to rely on leaks about the TPP to justify voting against the bills on the floor today. A host of provisions that have been added to the Trade Enforcement bill (H.R. 644) in order to gain support for this bill are egregious, such as prohibiting negotiations to address climate change, weakening language to combat human trafficking, and removing language to address currency manipulation. This bill is dangerous and destructive. I urge my colleagues to vote No.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is the third of the three amendments that have the same purpose. This one would strike the section of the bill that makes it more difficult to transfer Guantanamo detainees to other countries. I find it surrealistic. We have now debated two amendments tonight, and all we hear in opposition are repeated statements that everyone at Guantanamo is a terrorist--not true--and that everyone in Guantanamo is picked up on the foreign battlefield, fighting--not true. It is demonstrably not true. These are not debatable propositions. Some of the people in Guantanamo are terrorists. Some of the people in Guantanamo are picked up on the battlefield. Some were not. I gave you the example of Mr. Aamer, who was picked up by a foreign faction in the Northern Alliance and sold for a bounty because the United States offered a bounty for people who someone claimed was a terrorist. Everyone looked into it and said he wasn't a terrorist, he wasn't a combatant; yet he stays in Guantanamo. It costs us $3 million per prisoner, per year. There are communities in the United States which can handle these trials. I can think of no honest reason why we would not want the terrorists to be tried. The terrorists cannot be tried by military tribunal; let them try it, but the fact is they haven't been able to. They have been trying the military tribunals for 10 years now, and they haven't succeeded in convicting one person. They have had three plea bargains, no convictions, and no trials in the last 8 or 9 years. The Federal courts are functioning. Why not save money, try the people we think are guilty, get a guilty verdict, put them in maximum security prisons, and not hold people indefinitely without charge and without trial? That is simply un-American. Finally, we are engaged in an ideological war. Someone referenced radicalizing people. What radicalizes people more, what gives more evidence of the American bad faith and of anti-Islamic sentiments of terrible behavior than Guantanamo? It is a symbol worldwide. It is a radicalizing influence. Our own generals have said that nothing has recruited more enemy soldiers than Guantanamo. Let's close it, take care of the people who are there one way or the other, and do justice. I reserve the balance of my time.

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