Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this is an amazing time for everyone who loves music. We have more ways to listen, incredible new paths to discover new artists, and ``anytime anywhere'' access to almost any type of music. Just as television has moved from a homogenized three- network world to the dynamic multi-platform competition of today-- bringing us better and more varied programs than anyone could have imagined just a decade ago--radio has done the same. New digital services offer a dizzying area of choices and stations, and are pushing traditional AM/FM to innovate and break new ground as well. But the rules governing radio music haven't kept up with the times. After decades of legislative stopgaps, special interest exceptions, and congressional gridlock, radio businesses today operate under an absurd patchwork of inconsistent royalty standards and licensing rules. The result is a serious distortion of the economics of the radio business that artificially props up some services, and tilts the playing field steeply against others. And more than anything--it massively shortchanges artists and other music creators who, to this day, get paid nothing when their performances are aired on AM/FM radio. Today in your dashboard you might have an AM/FM radio, a SiriusXM receiver, and an online link to Pandora. If you hear a song on Pandora, the artist and his or her accompanying musicians get a decent royalty, since Internet radio is governed by a fair market value royalty standard. However, if you hit a different button and hear the exact same recording on SiriusXM, the artist gets a much smaller royalty for the exact same song, because satellite radio pays below market royalties thanks to a 15 year old ``grandfathered'' exception from the normal royalty standard. If you tune in on AM/FM, the artist gets nothing for the same performance. Not a cent. And if you click over to a song recorded before February 15, 1972, some of the biggest and most successful digital services have ceased paying royalties to older musicians, many of whom are past their working years and have no other way to make ends meet. In the end, everybody loses under this chaotic system. Radio services are forced to compete in an unfair and distorted market that props up the oldest broadcast technology at the expense of innovative new services. How is it fair that companies like Pandora and SiriusXM, who pay royalties on all (post-1972) music, must compete against big radio conglomerates that don't pay any royalties on most of the music they use? Even within the digital space, Pandora has loudly--and rightly-- complained that its competitor SiriusXM pays royalties that are much lower based on totally arbitrary government decisions. The Fair Play Fair Pay Act, which I am honored to introduce today along with my colleagues Congressmen Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Ted Deutch (D-FL), corrects this unfair and illogical system. It harmonizes the rules for licensing of sound recordings across all platforms and establishes a simple, fundamental principle for the radio business: Fair pay for all artists on all platforms. At the same time, it protects truly small, local, and non- commercial AM/FM radio stations by ensuring that their royalties are affordable, capped at $500 a year for stations with revenue below $1 million a year and at $100 a year for noncommercial broadcasters. It sets down a clear marker on the need to resolve the dispute over pre-72 music--making clear what should already have been obvious, that all music has value and all who create it should be paid regardless of age. The courts have begun the process of protecting the rights of older artists under state law. In the meantime, the provision in this bill can serve as a placeholder as we continue to monitor those developments, and work toward a long term solution that benefits all stakeholders. The bill also addresses the distribution of royalties, codifying industry practices that simplify the allocation of royalties to music producers and engineers. And it requires direct pay in direct licensing deals for music that is eligible for the existing statutory license. We are aware that there are ongoing discussions about direct pay for direct licensing, and the final provisions of the bill on this point will be informed by those discussions and by our commitment to protecting the rights and equities of all music creators, artists, independent labels, and majors. And it includes a concrete and enforceable protection for songwriters--stating in unambiguous terms that the changes made by this law cannot be used to lower or reduce songwriting royalties in any way. It is a great time for music lovers today--but if we don't fix the corrosive distortions that are eating away at the core of the radio business that won't be true forever. Artists already struggling with the steep decline in album sales will find it more and more difficult to make a living. Music as a career path will be closed off to many-- and if that happens we all lose. We look forward to working with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the House and Senate to consider this legislation and pass it into law.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chair, for the fifth year in a row, the Republicans have put forth a budget that devastates nondefense spending and dismantles Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and aid to college students. It gives a $200,000 tax break to the wealthiest Americans while imposing a $2,000 tax increase on working families. It abandons our critical national infrastructure and the jobs it could create. The Republican budget makes a clear choice: billionaires and corporations before working Americans and seniors. The Progressive Caucus people's budget offers a clear alternative. This budget creates 8.4 million jobs through investments in infrastructure, worker training, and clean energy. It repeals the devastating sequester cuts and gives the 46\1/2\ million Americans living in poverty a path back to prosperity. This alternative budget puts an end to a system where CEOs pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. It closes tax loopholes that allow corporations to avoid taxes on overseas profits and makes it harder for American businesses to set up shop in low-tax countries.

Mr. NADLER. It makes it harder for American businesses to set up shop in low-tax countries to lower their tax burden. It supports middle- class families through paid parental leave, childcare, and debt-free college. It proves that Congress can pass a budget that supports working families and seniors, builds an economy that creates jobs and restores faith in the American Dream. I urge my colleagues to invest in this country and its people. Support the people's budget.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2015. This bill authorizes $7 billion for passenger rail, including $5.8 billion for Amtrak, over the next 4 years. This bill is not perfect, but I appreciate the committee leadership's efforts to develop a bill in a bipartisan manner. This bill significantly reforms the way Amtrak funding is authorized. Rather than authorizing separate appropriations for debt service, capital, and operating expenses, the bill creates two new accounts--a Northeast corridor account and a national network account. The bill also creates a new program to provide grants to the States, funded at $300 million annually, of which $150 million is dedicated to the Northeast corridor. The Northeast corridor region contains 4 of the 10 largest metropolitan areas in the country. It is home to more than 51 million people, and our regional economy is the fifth-largest in the world between France and Germany. If the Northeast corridor were to unexpectedly shut down for just one day, the potential impact on the U.S. economy could be $100 million in transportation-related impacts and productivity losses. There is no question that it is absolutely in our national interest to do everything we can to maintain and develop the Northeast corridor, but New Yorkers also understand the importance of maintaining a national network, so I am pleased that the bill grants Amtrak the flexibility to transfer funds, if needed, to keep the national rail system operational. The bill also requires a more detailed plan for implementing specific improvements to the Northeast corridor that is free of poison pill, antilabor provisions, and it applies Buy America to the RRIF loan program. All of this is good, but we cannot lose sight of the bigger picture, which is that we are still woefully underfunding Amtrak. We spend more than $50 billion per year on highways and transit and over $15 billion on aviation, while Amtrak is just $1.4 billion, or less than 2 percent, of Federal transportation spending. This is despite the fact that the rail system needs at least $52 billion, or $2.6 billion per year, for 20 years just to meet ridership demands and bring the system into a state of good repair. The President's FY16 budget request, on the other hand, includes $5 billion for rail. Half of that is intended to bring public rail assets throughout the country to a state of good repair, including $550 million for the Northeast corridor; $2 billion is for high-speed rail and commuter rail; and $204 million is for the FRA rail safety measures, proven to be so necessary by the accidents on Metro North in New York and Connecticut. Unfortunately, this bill before us today simply authorizes current funding levels, but given the budget constraints imposed by the majority, it is probably the best bill we can hope for right now if we want to move a bipartisan bill. I would like to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for their efforts to advance an Amtrak reauthorization bill that moves the process forward. I look forward to working with them and the rest of my colleagues to make sure passenger rail receives the attention and resources it deserves. For now, this is a good bill, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, each year congressional offices host Australian college students as interns with the Uni-Capitol program. It gives them the opportunity to learn about the American democratic and legislative process as well as see how the Congress functions on a firsthand basis. My office is taking part in it right now, along with others in Congress. Some of Australia's brightest are here, pursuing knowledge and understanding. In so doing, we are forging bonds that will last even after they have returned to Australia. The Uni-Capitol program was born of the efforts of Eric Federing. Eric worked for more than a decade in the House and the Senate as a senior adviser. While doing this job, he lectured across Australia on American government, politics, and news media. In an effort to forge ties across the Pacific and for the betterment of both societies, Eric put together this idea in Washington in 1999. The selection process for the students is competitive and intellectually rigorous, ensuring the highest quality applicant. Thomas Alomes of Monash University, my office's 2015 intern, surely reflects this. All participating students are comprehensively matched with a congressional office and corresponding position. They come from a wide range of academic disciplines and bring as much knowledge and understanding to our offices as they take away. Over the two months of their internship, Mr. Federing's students have approached this opportunity with enthusiasm. Thomas has been an excellent addition to my office, producing well-written and high- quality work including memos on Civil Asset Forfeiture, the Authorization for Use of Military Force, and national security law. He has become a valued member of the team and taught us about the many commonalities between our two countries. While in Washington, DC, he has had the opportunity to learn from a wide range of officials from the Australian embassy, the DC media, and the White House. Now at the end of his internship, he can navigate the historic hallways of the Capitol like a pro. Australia continues to be one of America's strongest allies. Our greatest gift is the friendship born of shared values. I thank the Uni- Capitol Program and Thomas Alomes for their hard work, and I wish the program and Tom continued success in the future.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join the people of New York's tenth congressional district in recognition of Barnard College for 125 years of dedication and commitment to providing a rigorous liberal arts education to talented women from all over the world. On October 26, 2014, Barnard opened its campus to the community, and the entire City of New York, in celebration of its 125th anniversary, sharing the ``Barnard experience'' with all who visit. In 125 years of education and service, Barnard has established an incomparable legacy and has become an integral part of its community, as well as the entire city beyond its historic Morningside Heights campus. Since its founding in 1889, the College has produced many distinguished alumni who have gone on to be leaders in nearly every field of endeavor. Today's students are following in their footsteps by impacting not just their campus or New York City, but the entire world. In commemoration of the 125th anniversary, the Barnard women have again chosen outreach as their most important message and have pledged to perform 125 Days of Service in New York City and beyond. Over the years, I have been proud to work with the College in some of its many pursuits of supporting and developing collaborations between the College and many on- and off-campus constituencies. Through these efforts, Barnard has made a positive impact throughout the city, particularly in the Morningside Heights and Harlem communities. Barnard participates in numerous community partnerships and initiatives, both through annual contributions as well as organizing volunteer opportunities with local organizations like Morningside-Area Alliance, Community Impact, the Friends of Morningside Park, the Friends of Riverside Park, and the Broadway Mall Group. It has also worked to provide educational opportunities to young people in its community, working together with groups like St. John the Divine's ACT summer camp program, Tompkins Hall, and the Learning Center. And through an annual bike-a-thon, it raises funds for Columbia Community Service, with donations and participation increasing every year. In addition to its foundational commitment of educating promising young women, the College has historically reached out to those students who may be otherwise hindered by a lack of access to opportunities, which I commend. This has resulted in a diverse and inclusive student body, faculty, and staff. For all this and more, I would like to honor Barnard College for 125 years of significant and enduring contributions to the civic life of our community and the scholarship of our Nation. I wish the College the best of luck in its future endeavors, as I know it will continue to impact the lives of its students and its fellow community members throughout New York City and the world. I ask my colleagues to please join me in recognizing Barnard College's efforts.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I will comment on the demerits of this terrible bill in the debate on the bill. I want to comment now on how this bill got before us. This is, I think, the fifth bill we have considered in this Congress. Not one of those bills went through committee. Not one of those bills had a markup, a hearing, an opportunity for people to amend the bills in committee, and now the bills come to the floor for an hour of debate with no opportunity to offer amendments. This is hardly the transparency and the due process that the GOP leaders promised us. This bill is even worse because this bill was not on the calendar until late last night. Yesterday, when the Republican anti-choice women rebelled at the terrible rape provisions of the bill we were supposed to debate today and when they found they couldn't pass a bill today on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, they brought another off-the-shelf bill, which is a terrible bill, with no hearing in committee, no debate in committee, no markup, no opportunity to offer amendments, no vote in committee, no opportunity to offer amendments on the floor. This is not the way you run or should run the House of Representatives of the United States. It is a shameful procedure for a shameful bill.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record that the House should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health care.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7, the so-called No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. The name of the bill is a lie. There is now no taxpayer funding for abortions. I wish there were. The right of a woman to decide whether to become pregnant, to decide to continue her pregnancy, or even to make the difficult decision to terminate her pregnancy is protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has determined that neither Congress nor a State may place an undue burden on that right. Denial of Medicaid or other government funding that would be available for other medical procedures should be considered an undue burden, but that is not the law, unfortunately. Taxpayer funding of abortion is prohibited by the Hyde amendment. This bill goes far beyond that. This bill for the first time ever denies tax deductions and credits for women who use their own money to pay for abortions or to purchase insurance that covers abortions. In so doing, the Republican majority increases taxes for women and families. This bill for the first time denies the itemized medical tax deduction that is otherwise available for medical expenses if the medical expense is for an abortion. This bill for the first time treats as taxable income any distribution from a flexible spending account or health savings account that is used to pay for abortion expenses. This bill for the first time denies small employers the ability to use tax credits to help them to provide health coverage for their employees if that coverage includes abortion. This bill also denies income-eligible women the use of premium tax credits available under the Affordable Care Act if the insurance coverage they select includes abortion coverage. In first opposing and then voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act 50 times, my Republican colleagues have complained that government should not meddle in the private insurance market or in private health care choices, but this legislation obviously is designed to do just that. It seems that many Republicans believe in freedom, provided no one uses that freedom in the way they do not approve. That is a strange understanding of freedom. Even more stunning, this bill increases taxes on families, businesses, and the self-employed if they spend their own money--let me repeat that--their own money on abortion coverage or services, and this tax increase is being championed by Republicans, all of whom have taken a pledge not to raise taxes on individuals or businesses. The intent of the bill is clear. It is to end insurance coverage for abortions for all women, whether or not they obtain their insurance on an exchange, and even if they use their own money to purchase the insurance. My colleagues in the majority believe that, if you like your insurance coverage, you should get to keep it unless it is for choices that they don't like. Then they have no qualms about taking your insurance coverage away. That is the intended and likely result of this bill. Currently, the vast majority of insurance policies cover abortion services, but insurance companies will likely respond to the tax penalties this bill imposes by dropping the coverage of abortions from all of their plans. This will have a significant effect on all women, not just on lower income women, who have long felt the brunt of Federal restrictions on their health care choices. H.R. 7 is a radical departure from the current tax treatment of medical expenses and insurance coverage, and it is neither justifiable nor necessary to prevent the Federal funding of abortion. It is a frontal assault on the liberty and dignity of all American women. It should be roundly rejected.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of a clean Homeland Security Appropriations bill. We are just a week into the new Congress, and the Republicans are already back to their old games, but this time, they are playing politics with the security and safety of the Nation. We get it. They are frustrated with the President's executive order which attempts to reunite families and bring a rational, priority-based approach to our immigration system. Given the Constitution, the laws, and the legal precedents, the President's actions are clearly well within his executive powers. If they don't like it, they can pass an immigration bill, which would clearly supercede the actions of the President, but they wouldn't even try. That is what this is all about. It is about making false statements about the President, demonizing immigrants and their families, and trying to score political points back home. That is a disgrace, but it gets even worse. Not only are the Republicans stalling on immigration reform and leaving millions of families in limbo, but they are holding up funding for the entire Homeland Security Department. They are threatening the safety of Americans at our airports. They are making our borders less secure and are potentially leaving us more vulnerable to attack. This is particularly shocking, given the tragic events in Paris last week. Holding the security of the American people hostage to the demands of the anti-immigration fringe of their party is totally irresponsible. This is not the time for political games. We live in a dangerous world, and the security of the Nation is serious business. Reject this political stunt. Pass a clean Homeland Security bill that we all agree on. Then, if you want to, pass an immigration bill that would supersede what the President has done; but don't give us all of this nonsense about blackmailing the country by threatening our safety and saying, ``Unless we get the immigration provisions we want,'' which we know the President won't sign, ``there will be no Homeland Security bill, potentially no Homeland Security Department funding, and no guards at our borders.'' That is absurd.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I too came to the legislature and served for 16 years there. And for most of that time, Mario Cuomo was Governor. We all know that he was an eloquent philosopher in politics, someone who could express the goals and the principles of public office and of government more eloquently than almost anyone else. Mario Cuomo graduated first in his class from St. John's Law School in 1946. And despite sending out over 70 resumes, he couldn't get a response or an interview from a top law firm because he was Italian. And that was the state of prejudice in this country--or at least on Wall Street in 1946. He went on from there to become a major lawyer, to become the Governor of a State, to become a leader of a philosophy in American politics. But in doing so, he never forgot where he came from. He didn't forget his experiences, and he knew that other people were having similar experiences. He was a man of great principle. He vetoed the death penalty--though he knew that the death penalty was very popular in New York--12 times in a row, and he sustained those vetoes. Having not forgotten where he came from, he always wanted to use government to help defenseless people who needed the help of government, and he did. We all know many of the things he did. I am not going to repeat them here. But I want to just mention a couple of things that didn't get great publicity but that I saw as a member of the legislature. When he became Governor, he set up a commission. I forget the exact title--Commission on Child Support, Commission on Day Care, whatever it was. But every year for years, that commission came up with legislation which he supported and pushed, and some of us in the legislature worked on that. And he passed--we passed pioneering legislation, pioneering in this country on child support enforcement, which was considered a radical idea in the early 1980s. We passed the Child Support Standards Act so that judges couldn't leave women and their children without adequate support. He passed day care resource and referral legislation and family day care, all of which came from the initiatives of Governor Cuomo, none of which got a lot of publicity, which was focused on so- called bigger items. But these helped people. These were vital for people living their lives without a lot of money, without a lot of resources. But government became a helper and a friend because of Governor Cuomo.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Article III, section 1: ``The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.''

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I remained in New York yesterday to attend the funeral of former Governor Mario Cuomo. Had I been present, I would have voted for The Honorable Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the President is not changing the law, he is exercising Presidential prosecutorial choice. The very fact that only 400,000 people a year can be deported when there are admittedly 11 million undocumented people in this country says you have to make choices. I didn't see anyone on that side of the aisle demand that President Bush--or President Obama, for that matter--deport all 11 million people and propose the appropriation to enable that to be done. Failing that, there must be choices. The President must choose. I will not repeat all of the legal arguments that we have heard over the last hour that the President has it well within his power to make these choices. Discretion happens--400,000 against 11 million-- discretion happens. Making that discretion systematic and sensible, prioritizing it, doesn't change the law. The Republicans admit the law is broken, but they haven't brought any bills to this floor in 4 years, and they have ignored the bipartisan Senate bill, so the President must act and that he acts within his power is good. Finally, I must comment on the remarks of Mr. Barletta who says--and I have heard other people say it--that the undocumented aliens--or the documented aliens, for that matter--pose a threat to American jobs. The fact is they do jobs that other people don't want, and more to the point, what poses a threat to American living standards is the fact that they can't enforce standards. The fact that an undocumented alien can't complain to an enforcement agency when he is paid below minimum wage or when he is exploited, that reduces wage levels for everyone. If you want to help wage levels for American workers, let the undocumented people who are here and who are going to stay here, let them come out of the shadows, pass a comprehensive bill, let them work legally, and enforce the minimum wage law. It will benefit all American workers.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes training and equipping Syrians and Iraqis to fight ISIS, authorizes $63 billion for warfighting, and it does all this without a debate or a vote by Congress to authorize the use of military force in this conflict; instead, we are still relying on the obsolete 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. This is an evasion of Congress' solemn constitutional responsibility to the American people to decide on the question of war and peace and not to leave that to the President alone. We were told that we would debate these issues after the election. Now, once again, we sidestep these questions. In the meantime, the President has begun a bombing campaign of Syria. I don't recall this Congress ever authorizing a bombing campaign in Syria. Again, these are questions for Congress, and we must assert our constitutional power to authorize or reject the use of force in Syria after a real debate. I, therefore, cannot acquiesce by voting for these funds. In addition, this bill continues the shameful prohibition on closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay or transferring its inmates to prisons in the United States. It is beyond shameful that we are holding prisoners, some of whom are alleged terrorists, for 13 years so far, without any charges or trial or prospect of trial. This violates every principle of human rights and every principle of American liberty. These prisoners should be charged and tried and convicted or else released. The bill prohibits this elementary justice. I am astonished, frankly, that I would hear on the floor of the United States Congress, as I did last time we discussed this, someone say that these people might be acquitted if they were tried; therefore, they should be held in jail forever because maybe the evidence doesn't exist that they are, in fact, terrorists, and because someone in the government--in the all-powerful, all-mighty, all-knowing bureaucracy-- says that an individual is a terrorist, that person must be held in jail indefinitely because, after all, we don't have the proof. That is not America. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I had to return to New York to attend a funeral, and as a result, I missed three votes on November 20, 2014. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on roll call vote no. 529, ageeing to the amendment offered by Mr. Waxman, ``aye'' on roll call vote no. 530, the motion to recommit, and ``no'' on roll call vote no. 531, final passage of HR 4795, the ``Promoting New Manufacturing Act.''

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous passage today of H. Res. 707, we send a clear, strong, and bipartisan message condemning the rising tide of anti-Semitism around the world. In 2014 alone, we have seen an increasing number of murders at Jewish sites, of violent attacks, and death threats against Jews. There has been a disturbing increase of anti-Semitism throughout Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East, including in Hungary, Turkey, Greece, Britain, France, and Germany. We must ensure that the world views such actions for what they are-- the vile and hate-fueled persecution of an entire people--rather than an acceptable expression of frustration with political events in the Middle East or anywhere else. Tragically, 70 years after 6 million Jewish men, women, and children were murdered simply for being Jews, many Jews in Europe again face violent anti-Semitism and must live in constant fear. Anti-Semitic imagery and comparisons of Jews and Israel to Nazis have been on display at demonstrations against Israel throughout the United States and the world. Make no mistake, this is a new face on a very old hatred. Disagreeing with Israeli policy is no excuse for anti-Semitism. I want to thank my colleagues, but I want to thank especially Peter Roskam, Nita Lowey, and Kay Granger for leading this effort with me; and I want to thank Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Kevin McCarthy, Ed Royce, and Eliot Engel who helped bring this important bipartisan piece of legislation to the floor.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Speaker, I know the scourge of violent Islamic terrorism all too well. I represent the World Trade Center area in New York that was attacked on September 11, 2001. So I agree with the President that we must work together to combat ISIL. Today, however, ISIL cannot project military power beyond the Middle East. ISIL is a direct military threat to our allies and to our interests in the Middle East. Perhaps we should help bolster the defenses of our allies, such as Jordan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates. The current threat to the United States is from Europeans and Americans who may train with ISIL in the Middle East and then return to the United States to do us harm. This threat cannot be fought by military means in Iraq and Syria but by counterintelligence, appropriate surveillance, and border control here and abroad. When it comes to ISIL operations in the Middle East, those very same operations that threaten our allies, we must ask why we do not see these threatened countries offering troops on the ground. Why are we more interested in their defense than they are? These are some of the questions we in Congress should debate before we vote to go to war. Make no mistake; the offensive campaign of air attacks against ISIL that President Obama recently announced clearly constitutes a war within the meaning of the Constitution. The Constitution very deliberately places the decision to go to war with the American people acting through Congress, not with the President. The decision to go to war against ISIL and to expand our efforts into countries like Syria requires congressional authorization. The Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 cannot be relied upon for congressional authority for acts of war in circumstances completely unforeseen then against an enemy that did not exist then. Identification of ISIL with al Qaeda with the planning of the attacks on September 11, 2001, is specious. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was, similarly, not about ISIL. Congress must assert its constitutional power to authorize or reject the use of force in Iraq and Syria. We are not being asked today to authorize a new conflict with ISIL, even if that is implied by our vote today, and therein lies the danger. This vote without a vote on the wider Authorization for Use of Military Force will be taken by the public, the media, and perhaps even the courts as a de facto authorization of military force in Syria. This would undermine our ability to seriously debate the very real questions before us. How deadly is the threat we are facing, and what is the best way to eliminate that threat? What will happen when American fliers are shot down over Syria and perhaps beheaded on television by ISIL? Will the demand for revenge be overwhelming? Just how steep is the slippery slope we are embarking upon? How long will the conflict last? Is there an exit strategy? What does victory look like? How much will it cost? How many U.S. lives will be lost? Whom will we be arming in Syria? Do they share our long-term interests? What are the odds those arms will be turned against us or allies? It is precisely these types of questions that should be asked when Congress debates the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Until we have that debate in Congress and answer these questions and make a decision on an AUMF, we should not step foot on the slippery slope to another long war. Approving this amendment would be a big step onto that slippery slope, and so I must vote ``no.''

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, 13 years ago, Osama bin Laden orchestrated the deadliest terrorist attack in American history, killing almost 3,000 people immediately and wounding thousands more. The attacks also created an environmental nightmare. Hundreds of tons of contaminants poured onto the streets and canyons of Manhattan and Brooklyn and other areas, northern New Jersey, covering responders and survivors in toxic dust. In the days following the attack, the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States Government, contrary to ample evidence, insisted that the air in lower Manhattan and Brooklyn was safe to breathe. Thousands of responders remained on the site for search, rescue, and cleanup efforts; and thousands of survivors returned to their homes, but the air was not safe to breathe. The EPA was not telling the truth. Now, I don't get angry at the government for the first few days, maybe even a week or two, encouraging people to help with the rescue operation when we still thought it might be a rescue operation, but after that 2 weeks, when people were working at the site for weeks and months without proper respiratory protection because the Federal Government was telling them that no protection was necessary because the air was safe to breathe, that was no longer a rescue operation. It was a cleanup operation. There was no one alive to be saved at that point, and people whose lives and health were put in danger at that point were put in danger in vain because the air was not safe to breathe, despite the assurances of the EPA. Today, more than 30,000 first responders and survivors are sick and in need of special care because of that. It was for those tens of thousands of brave, selfless, and innocent responders and survivors that Congress came together in 2010, after many years of struggle and negotiation, to pass the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act in order to fulfill a moral obligation to, as Lincoln said, ``care for him who shall have borne the battle.'' Today, the programs are working. Residents of all 50 States and 431 of the 435 congressional districts receive health care through the 9/11 health program. More than 7,800 individuals have been found eligible for compensation from the victim compensation fund. More than $490 million has so far been awarded, and new applications are processed every day. But the Federal Government's duty to support those who have become ill in the aftermath of 9/11 and those whose illnesses have yet to manifest themselves--because we know that many of the illnesses and many of the cancers take years to show themselves, that duty is not done, even as the programs we authorized in 2010 are set to expire. We must continue to provide health care coverage to the tens of thousands currently enrolled in the 9/11 health program and ensure that no eligible individuals are denied access to the victims compensation fund. Our obligation will carry us far into the future. Thousands of individuals exposed to the toxic air on 9/11 and in the weeks and days following that--even those who are healthy today we know will face major health issues in the years to come, as latent cancers and other illnesses emerge. For that reason, I am proud to work with Representatives Maloney and King and Senators Gillibrand and Schumer to try to reauthorize these critical programs. I urge all of our colleagues to work with us in support of a reauthorization and to move this bill through Congress and onto the President's desk as soon as possible. Just as we stood together, as a Nation, in the days following September 11, 2001, just as we stood strong together in 2010 to create these vital programs, we must join forces again to ensure that the heroes of 9/11 are not abandoned when they need us most. We must pass a new reauthorization to sustain these programs. We must protect the heroes and survivors of 9/11. There are really two separate moral imperatives here that we must meet. The first is that we must show that the United States takes care of its own. We take care of those who fall in our battles, who are wounded in our struggles. And the attack on 9/11 was not an attack on New York City. It was not an attack on the World Trade Center. It was not against the Port Authority of New York. It was an attack on America, an attack on the United States. The particular victims happened to be located in New York. And we must show that we do not leave people behind on the battlefield, that we take care of those who are wounded on our behalf. The second moral imperative is that much of the injuries that continue to be felt, much of the illnesses with which people suffer, much of the illnesses which we don't know about but which people will suffer from in the years to come are the direct fault of the Federal Government because of its assurances, contrary to known facts at the time, that the air was safe to breathe, that people should go back to work, stay working on the pile, and go back to school. We knew better. Many of us said, don't believe the EPA. Don't go back to work. Don't go back to school. This is poison. And it was clear. And at first, when the EPA was saying this, there was no data to support their safety assurances, and they kept saying it when there was plenty of data to say that the air was not safe to breathe. So because of the false assurances by the Federal Government, many thousands of people relying on those assurances worked without the proper respiratory protection to clean up the site, worked in the area, and helped revive the economy at the expense of their health. And we must, to the extent possible, make them whole today. That is a second moral imperative. And finally, it must never be said that the United States remembers its heroes and honors its wounded for 13 years and then forgets about them. It has been 13 years. In 2 years, the 9/11 health bill will expire. Let it not be said that we remember for 13 years and take care of people for 15, and that is it. That would be a heck of an epitaph on a moral country. As we are involved in a war--which it is, unfortunately--against many terrorists across the world, and the President is going to address us on some aspects of that tonight, let us not abandon those who fell, who gave up their health, who continue to suffer on our behalf. It would be wrong. It would be immoral. It would not be worthy of the United States. This is a great and moral Nation. This Congress must show it by reauthorizing the 9/11 bill in a timely fashion. It is one of the things we must do in response to 9/11. There are many other things we must do, many other things that we have done. But taking care of our own wounded is one of them and one of the attributes of a civilized today.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the Speaker does not have a good record when it comes to wasting taxpayer dollars on frivolous lawsuits. When the Justice Department concluded that the Defense of Marriage Act could not be defended in court, the House wasted $2.3 million trying to defend the indefensible and lost in the Supreme Court. Now, the Speaker wants to waste more of the taxpayers' money on a meritless lawsuit against the President for not ``taking care that the law be faithfully executed.'' What did the President do? In implementing the Affordable Care Act, which the Republican-led House has voted to repeal 50 times, he postponed implementation of one provision by a year, a provision the Republicans and the House opposed. Now, they want to waste money to go to court to say the President had no power to postpone this provision for a year, although no one opposed President Bush when he postponed implementation of a provision of the Medicare drug act for a year. It is well-settled that it is within the discretion of Presidents in implementing a law to postpone implementation of part of it in order to get it done right, but this leads to another absurdity of the case. Let's assume the Republicans get the House to go into court and somehow overcome the standing question--which they will not. What is the remedy they will seek? By the time it got to court, the provision in question will have already been implemented, so the Republicans want to waste $5 million or $6 million in taxpayers' money to go into court and say, Judge, please order the President to implement what he has already implemented. Totally ridiculous. So what have we got? We have a Congress that has passed no highway bill, no minimum wage bill, no unemployment extension bill, no pay equity for women bill, no action on campaign finance reform, no action to reduce the burdens of student loans, no action to make sure that women continue to have access to contraceptive services despite the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, no action on all the emergencies that face the American people, but we are going to waste money and time on a meritless lawsuit that will go nowhere, but will simply serve the single function of diverting attention from all the real problems the House Republicans want to continue to ignore. This is not a proper use of the taxpayers' money. More wasted money for political purposes. For shame.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, 6 years ago, President Obama and the Democratic Congress took office. When they took office in January of 2009, the economy was in free fall, and we were losing 800,000 jobs a month--losing 800,000 jobs a month, but the Congress went to work, and under the guidance of President Obama, we passed the American Recovery Act, we saved the American automobile industry, and within 14 months, we were gaining 250,000 jobs a month. We turned around over 1 million jobs a month, from losing 800,000 to gaining 250,000 in 14 months. The President knew that that wasn't sufficient to continue the progress, so he proposed the American Jobs Act, and he proposed a major investment in American infrastructure. But the newly-elected Republican Congress--the obstructionist Republican Congress--stopped the American Jobs Act, wouldn't pass the infrastructure bill, and stopped every job initiative the President and Democrats proposed, and we have had a slow recovery from that recession. We are gaining about 200,000 to 250,000 jobs a month. It is up a little, and that is good, but our economy is about $2 trillion below its productive capacity, below what it should be because every proposal from the President has been stopped by the Republican Congress, which shouldn't have time for it, but they had time for other things. We had plenty of time to take 50 votes on repealing the Affordable Care Act at a cost to the taxpayers of about $79 million to repeat that vote 50 times. We had time for the Republicans to shut down the government. That cost the economy about $24 billion. We had time when the administration knew that the Defense of Marriage Act could not be defended in court, the House of Representatives wasted $3.5 million trying to defend the indefensible in court and lost in front of the Supreme Court. We have had, in that time, no minimum wage increase, no extended unemployment insurance, and no pay equity for women because it costs too much money. This House has passed $850 billion in unpaid-for tax loopholes for large corporations--unpaid for. Now, they want to waste more money. The Speaker wants to waste more money on a meritless lawsuit against the President for not taking care that the law be faithfully executed. What did he do? In implementing the Affordable Care Act--which the Republicans have tried to repeal 50 times--he postponed implementation of one provision by a year--a provision the Republicans opposed, so they now want to waste money to go into court and sue the President to say he had no power to postpone this for a year, even though no one opposed President Bush when he postponed for a year a provision of the Medicare drug act when he was President. It is well within the discretion of Presidents, in implementing a law, to postpone parts of it in order to get it done right. That has been very clear, and it becomes another question. Let's assume the Republicans went into court and overturned the standing question that Mr. Butterfield talked about--which they will not--what is the remedy they seek? By the time it got to court, that provision will have been implemented, so the Republicans want to waste $5 million or $6 million of taxpayers' money to go into court and say, Judge, order the President to implement what has been already implemented--totally ridiculous. So what have we got? We have got a Congress with no highway bill, no minimum wage bill, no unemployment extension bill, no pay equity for women bill, no action on campaign finance reform, no action to reduce the burdens of student loans, no action to make sure that women continue to have access to contraceptive services--despite the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decisions--no action on all the emergencies that face the American people, but we are going to waste money on a meritless lawsuit that will go nowhere, but simply will serve the single function of diverting attention from all the real problems the House Republicans want to continue to ignore. That is not a proper use of the taxpayers' money, more wasted money for political purposes--for shame.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4572, the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014, as amended, which renews for another 5 years the statutory license that allows satellite providers to retransmit distance signals into a local broadcast area in certain circumstances. The satellite distant-into-local license contained in section 119 of the Copyright Act is set to expire on December 31 of this year. Among other things, that license allows satellite carriers to provide an out- of-market station to customers who are not served by local television broadcasts. Enacted in 1988 when the satellite industry was in its infancy, the section 119 license was intended to foster competition with the cable industry and also to increase service to unserved households, those subscribers who cannot receive an over-the-air signal of a local network. In 2010, as was the case on three prior occasions, Congress extended the section 119 license for another 5 years. In granting cable and satellite providers the statutory right to retransmit copyrighted content at a government-regulated rate, Congress created an exception to the general rule that creators have exclusive rights to their works, including the right to determine when and how to distribute them. This licensing system replaces the free market, something that we are generally reluctant to do. When we did so for cable and satellite providers, these industries were just starting up and the licenses were intended to encourage growth, foster competition, and enhance consumer access. On these fronts, the system has been a tremendous success. It is estimated that nearly 90 percent of American households now subscribe to a pay-TV service provided by multichannel video programming distributors, in most cases, cable or satellite operators. Nearly all households have a choice of at least three different providers. Nonetheless, the dramatic recent changes in marketplace dynamics, as well as technological advantages that revolutionize ways of distributing video content, raise legitimate questions about whether the statutory licensing system in the Copyright Act is still needed or should be changed. I support this 5-year reauthorization of the section 119 distant- into-local satellite license. We still need answers as to how many households would actually lose one or more of the four major network channels if section 119 were not renewed. I, nonetheless, support this 5-year reauthorization because it will ensure that consumers who are receiving service by virtue of the section 119 license retain that service when the agreements providing for that service expire at the end of the year. I hope we use the time afforded by this renewal to make the modifications to see if we have to keep the statutory license and keep away from the free market or modify the statutory license in the future. For the time being, we ought to extend it and renew this license now. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 4572.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question in order to bring the Protect Women's Health from Corporate Interference Act to the floor. In 1993, I was a leader in passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA. If you had told me then that RFRA would one day be used to allow employers to dictate to employees what preventive health care they can or cannot use, if you had told me then that I would stand on the House floor in 2014 fighting to ensure that women have the ability to make their own most basic health care decisions regardless of their boss' religious beliefs, I would never have believed it. We wrote that bill to be a shield to protect an individual's personal exercise of religious beliefs, not a sword to enable employers to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. No matter how sincerely held a religious belief might be, for-profit employers, like Hobby Lobby or Conestoga Wood, must not be allowed to impose their beliefs or that belief on their employees as a means of denying their employees access to critical preventive health care services. I was proud to work with the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) to introduce this simple legislation to ensure that, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's mangling of RFRA, employers cannot deny their employees access to federally mandated health services. Every woman must have the right to follow her own beliefs and guidance when making health care choices. This bill simply guarantees that the boss' beliefs cannot supersede that right. I was disappointed to see that none of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted earlier this week to bring this bill to the floor. I urge them to stand with us today or else, when they go home this weekend, to tell the men and women of their districts that their health care decisions are now going to be made for them by their bosses, regardless of their own choices, regardless of their own religious beliefs or the doctor's recommendations; and tell them that you believe that their boss' religious beliefs must be imposed on them, notwithstanding their own religious beliefs, which don't count; and tell them you did nothing to stop this. This country will not stand for that. We have fought for too long to preserve the right of all Americans to make their own health care choices and, I must add, to make their own religious decisions to refuse to act now. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, allow this bill to come to the floor, and send a strong message that health care choices are not your boss' business and that your religious beliefs trump your boss' religious beliefs. Your boss has a right to his beliefs. You have a right to your beliefs. Government must not allow him to impose his beliefs on you.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I am proud to be a leading co-sponsor of the Sensenbrenner/Lofgren/Massie amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it. The NSA must stop conducting illegal `backdoor searches' into the communications of U.S. citizens. Congress must adopt the Sensenbrenner/ Lofgren/Massie amendment and make sure that this loophole is closed in the law. For too long, the NSA has misused authority granted under section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, which was meant only to authorize spying on foreigners. However, the NSA has misused this authority to search emails, pictures, videos, and other internet traffic of innocent Americans. This practice is clearly unconstitutional and violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, and normally requires a court- issued warrant. Clearly, this is not how Congress intended the law to be applied. After the passage of the USA Freedom Act, this amendment is the logical next step to prevent improper surveillance. I will continue to work to improve our nation's privacy laws and to ensure that this Administration, and all those that follow it, respect the constitutional rights of all Americans. As I said at the time, the USA Freedom Act certainly did not give us everything we wanted or needed. It was far from perfect, but it was an important step forward. We must not leave in place a framework that leads to the dragnet surveillance of our citizens. During the last several months, I have worked with my colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee to pass the USA Freedom Act. While that bill contains some significant reforms, such as ending NSA's bulk collection of metadata from Americans, more reforms are still needed. And this amendment is an important step in the right direction.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cotton says that by this amendment, Congress recognizes the danger presented by these detainees. But legislative bodies have no right to make such judgments about individuals. Ever since Magna Carta, we have denied the government the power to imprison or punish people on mere accusations. Just because the government or Congress labels someone a terrorist doesn't make him one. The government must be required to prove the accusation in court. That has always been a bedrock American principle until we opened Guantanamo. Now we imprison people indefinitely without trial. By what claim of right do we do this? How can we be sure we are punishing actual terrorists and not innocent people when we hold no trials? Guantanamo should be closed and its inmates either tried or released. It is beyond time to close Guantanamo to end this shame on American justice.