Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I don't have the time to answer all of Mr. Gowdy's arguments except to say that if this bill were to pass, which it won't because the Senate won't look at it, but if the bill were to pass and if my amendment were adopted, it would simply make it easier for the courts to define what prosecutorial discretion is and is not, and I am confident that they would agree with Mr. Gowdy as to some of the horribles not being prosecutorial discretion. But since it would put prosecutorial discretion as an exception to the bill, then you could get a judicial determination as to what prosecutorial discretion is and what it isn't. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. I will yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. NADLER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman. Isn't it true, sir, that the language that you read from the amendment says ``nothing in this bill''? It means that if the amendment were passed, the ability of the Congress or the courts to enforce the law against the President would be exactly the same as if the bill didn't pass, so it wouldn't immunize the President from the current law. It would immunize him from whatever new thing the bill would do, but not from the current law and whatever ability the courts have to restrain the President from not enforcing civil rights laws right now.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment adds a new section to the bill to ensure that the President retains the well-established constitutional authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion when enforcing our laws. H.R. 4138 would empower either the House or the Senate to file a lawsuit whenever one House disagrees with how the executive branch is implementing a law. The bill applies to enforcement decisions made by any officer or employee of the United States, thus reaching into every decision across hundreds of thousands of ``Federal statutes, rules, regulations, programs, policies, or other laws.'' H.R. 4138 is a practical nightmare. It invites endless costly litigation over policy disagreements that do not raise any legitimate constitutional concerns. We need look no further than the examples cited by the sponsors of this bill to see that this is true. Far from representing a violation of the Take Care Clause, President Obama's decision to delay--not to refuse--enforcement of various deadlines under the Affordable Care Act are reasonable implementation decisions that are designed to ensure the ultimate success of the President's signature law. Delaying implementation of a complex law is not unusual. Similarly, the administration's setting of immigration enforcement priorities falls well within its exercise of prosecutorial discretion and raises no legitimate constitutional concern. The administration's decision to provide temporary relief from removal for certain DREAMers--young adults brought to the United States as children--complies both with Congress' statutory directive to establish national immigration enforcement priorities and within the President's responsibility to exercise prosecutorial discretion under the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. While my colleagues now seek to drag courts into nonjusticiable political disputes, the fact of the matter is that no court has ever found delay in implementation of a law or the routine exercise of criminal or civil enforcement powers to constitute a violation of the Take Care Clause. The fact is that courts likely will refuse jurisdiction over lawsuits brought by Congress against a President because H.R. 4138 violates bedrock principles of constitutional law. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the Take Care Clause vests the President with ``broad'' discretion to determine when, against whom, how, and even whether to prosecute apparent violations of the law. In Heckler v. Chaney, for example, the Court confirmed this core principle when it recognized that: An agency's refusal to institute proceedings shares to some extent the characteristics of the decision of a prosecutor in the executive branch not to indict--a decision which has long been regarded as the special province of the executive branch, inasmuch as it is the Executive who is charged by the Constitution to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' The injection of Congress and the courts into decisions that the Constitution squarely commits to the President's discretion raises significant separation of powers concerns. It also lies beyond the purview of the courts to accept any such case under the Supreme Court's political question jurisprudence. In Baker v. Carr, the Supreme Court made clear that the courts cannot and will not interfere in matters that the Constitution commits to a coordinate branch of government. My amendment seeks to mitigate H.R. 4138's unconstitutional encroachment into the President's authority to faithfully execute the law by adding a new subsection (d) to ensure that nothing in H.R. 4138 ``limits or otherwise affects the clearly established constitutional authority of the executive branch to exercise prosecutorial discretion.'' My amendment cures one of H.R. 4138's many constitutional infirmities. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out that, no, the RAPID Act does not guarantee any nuclear power plant or anything else, but it does short-circuit the proper review. It, for instance, says that if certain procedures are not completed within a certain period of time, the application is deemed approved. It means that the applicant can slow-walk information and get an approval automatically because the review is not complete within a period of time. It is just too dangerous. The present procedures that we have have, in fact, allowed us to build the nuclear power plants, and other facilities have been built. We should not play Russian roulette with the lives of millions of Americans by short-circuiting the environmental review of nuclear power plants, especially in earthquake fault zones. Yes, we need energy. Yes, we should have energy from all sorts of power sources, but we should do it safely and not risk Fukushimas galore. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment exempts from the bill any construction project for a nuclear facility planned in an area designated as an earthquake fault zone. The RAPID Act would prevent meaningful input on complicated construction projects that have the potential to have disastrous impact on individuals living near them. The meltdown of the nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan in the aftermath of a devastating earthquake and tsunami highlights the dangers of regulatory failure when it comes to ensuring the safe operation of nuclear reactors. In particular, the Fukushima disaster illustrates the failure in planning a construction project in an area susceptible to earthquakes and tsunamis. March 11, 2014, next week, marks the 3-year anniversary of the Fukushima meltdown. A recent reporter visiting the site described it like this: The site of Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan remains a post-apocalyptic landscape of abandoned towns, frozen in time. Now, consider the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, which is only 24 miles from New York City and, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, could be at risk of reactor core damage from an earthquake. An estimated 17 million people live within a 50-mile radius of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant. By imposing strict deadlines and limiting opportunities for agencies and the public to participate in the approval process, this bill could prevent the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from being able to protect the tens of millions who live in the greater New York Metropolitan area and millions of Americans who live near nuclear power plants from a catastrophe akin to what happened at Fukushima in Japan. I want to point out that we have already had nuclear accidents right here in the United States. Just last month, night shift workers inhaled plutonium that was leaked from a nuclear waste burial site in Carlsbad, New Mexico. Radioactive materials reached the surface and were inhaled by several workers. Those workers face the possibility of subatomic particles bombarding their internal organs for the rest of their lives. Now, imagine the immense risk to human health that would result from a large-scale leak caused by an earthquake. It would be catastrophic. We cannot afford to water down nuclear regulations or restrict the ability of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from doing its job of protecting human health. My amendment would ensure that the inclusive and prudential construction approval process that currently exists under the National Environmental Policy Act will continue to apply to any construction projects for a nuclear facility planned in an area designated as an earthquake fault zone. The procedures in this bill that would short-circuit the NEPA procedures are just too dangerous when you are considering an application to construct a nuclear facility in an earthquake fault zone. I urge everyone to support the amendment because, when it comes to constructing a nuclear facility in an earthquake fault zone, we really cannot be too careful. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor David Lachmann on his retirement from the House of Representatives and to thank him for his 25 years of federal service. David came to Washington in 1989 to work for former Congressman Steve Solarz of Brooklyn, staffing him on the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, as well as on issues related to criminal justice, religious liberty, housing, and the environment. When I was elected to Congress in 1992, David became my first legislative director. In 1997, David moved to the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. For the past 13 years, he has served as the Democratic chief of staff on the Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee. As an expert on the First Amendment, and particularly on issues of religious liberty and church-state relations, David was instrumental in the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. He is also one of the foremost experts in the House on bankruptcy, a very technical and complicated area of law but one that affects millions of people. Over the last 25 years, David has worked tirelessly to advocate for the rights and well-being of people who are most in need of Congress' protection but who do not have access to high-priced lobbyists. David performed these services every day, whether in defending against attacks on women's reproductive rights, working to protect Americans' civil liberties against PATRIOT Act provisions, or building support for legislation to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. David's resume is impressive, but it does not tell the full story. David is a legend in the House. He is one of those committed public servants who has become an institution within the institution. As the chief of staff of the Constitution Subcommittee, David has been the point person on some of the most difficult and divisive issues facing Congress each year. Yet, he brings a sense of humor, wit, and perspective that is well known in the House, without ever sacrificing his commitment to advancing the cause of equality and justice, and to defending the rights and freedoms of the most vulnerable among us. He has provided Members of Congress, staff, and advocates with a wealth of expertise and institutional memory on a wide range of issues that would be difficult, if not impossible, to replace. It will be a long time before I stop picking up the phone and dialing his number to ask him a question about some matter before the committee, or to get his perspective on the latest Supreme Court decision, or to just reminisce about the days of 1970s and 1980s New York politics. David has worked with me for a long time, and his biggest contribution has been as a trusted adviser and loyal friend. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking David for his service and for his dedication to working on behalf of the American people. He will be sorely missed in this institution, but we wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize ASCAP, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, on its milestone 100th birthday. In February of 1914, a group of prominent American music creators and publishers met at the Hotel Claridge in New York to discuss a noble idea: a society that would champion and protect the rights of music writers and publishers by licensing the public performance of their music. The result was ASCAP, officially formed 100 years ago as of this Thursday, February 13th. ASCAP's earliest members included John Philip Sousa, Irving Berlin and James Weldon Johnson--enormously important songwriters and composers of the early 20th century, and still beloved by Americans today. Since then, ASCAP's membership has grown exponentially. It currently has nearly 500,000 creators and publishers of music of all genres, and licenses the public performance of more than nine million musical works. The society's membership includes countless musical luminaries past and present, from Duke Ellington to Katy Perry, George Gershwin to Jay Z, Leonard Bernstein to Beyonce, Marc Anthony to Brad Paisley, Henry Mancini to Hans Zimmer. Equally important, ASCAP also represents many thousands of writers whose names we might not recognize, but whose music we love. As a long-time member of the House Judiciary Committee, I can attest to ASCAP's commitment to protecting the creative and economic rights of its members, and to working with lawmakers to build a viable future for professional songwriters and composers. ASCAP is always willing to come to Washington with guitars in hand, to remind us that every music creator is a small business owner who helps drive the US economy as they provide the soundtrack to our lives. I can also attest to the important cultural and economic contributions made by the 3,500 ASCAP members in my congressional district. ASCAP members write the music for Broadway musicals; compose the theme songs and scores for the many movies and TV shows filmed in Manhattan and Brooklyn; and write the musical compositions performed by many New York recording artists. They are an integral part of the cultural and economic fabric of my district. ASCAP's centennial comes at a critical juncture for music and copyright. The modes of music consumption are changing rapidly, and the future for songwriters has never been less clear. While ASCAP is uniquely positioned to help its members navigate this uncertain future, it is also hampered by a regulatory structure that has not evolved along with the music landscape. That antiquated regulatory structure prevents ASCAP from licensing new services in ways that balances the needs of music creators, licensees and consumers. Those rules need to be updated so that, in its second century, ASCAP can continue to enable songwriters to enrich our culture and uplift our souls while feeding their families and paying the rent. For 100 years now ASCAP has been at the forefront of the global music industry, nurturing new music talent and licensing every new music distribution platform, all in the name of protecting the songwriters, composers and publishers that call ASCAP home. I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing its contributions and wishing ASCAP a second century as remarkable as its first.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, today we consider H.R. 7, the misleadingly named No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion bill. Congress, unfortunately, already prohibits Federal funding of abortion. This bill does not simply codify existing law. Rather, it modifies and extends current funding restrictions in the Hyde amendment and, for the first time ever, uses the Tax Code to penalize the use of private funds to purchase insurance that covers abortion. It denies small businesses the tax credits they are entitled to under the Affordable Care Act if they offer their employees health insurance, if that health insurance covers abortion. It similarly denies income-eligible women and families the tax credits that they are entitled to under the Affordable Care Act if they use their own money to purchase insurance, if that insurance covers abortion. The claim here is that a tax credit equals Federal funding. This is a completely new principle, asserted for the first and only time in this context. If we adopt this new theory--that granting tax relief is Federal funding--then how can tax relief for churches, synagogues, and religious-affiliated schools not be considered Federal funding in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? We should all be very careful about establishing this new principle. H.R. 7 is not a codification of existing law, nor is it just another attempt to enact the approach taken in the Stupak-Pitts amendment to the House-passed Affordable Care Act. H.R. 7 is a radical departure from current tax treatment of medical expenses and insurance coverage; and it is not justifiable, nor is it necessary, unfortunately, to prevent Federal funding of abortion. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. Today the House will consider H.R. 7--a bill that embraces the completely fictitious claim that legislation is needed to prevent federal funding of abortion services. Congress already prohibits federal funding of abortion and has done so for more than thirty years. Many of us disagree with that decision. But regardless, there is no need for this bill, at least not to prevent federal funding of abortion. Nor is the bill simply an effort to codify existing law. H.R. 7 modifies and extends current funding restrictions in the Hyde Amendment that are limited in time and scope, without any effort to determine how such a sweeping and permanent expansion would impact American women and their families. If this were all, that would be reason enough to oppose it, but H.R. 7 actually goes much further. For the first time ever, anti-choice lawmakers are using the Federal tax code to penalize the purchase of insurance that covers abortion in certain circumstances. These penalties would apply when women and businesses use their own money-- let me repeat that, their own money, not Federal funds--to purchase insurance that covers abortion. In particular, H.R. 7 penalizes income-eligible women by denying them the tax credits that they are entitled to under the Affordable Care Act if they use their own money to purchase insurance that covers abortion. It similarly denies small businesses the tax credits that they are entitled to under the Affordable Care Act if the insurance they offer their employees includes abortion coverage. The claim here is that a tax credit equals Federal funding. This is a completely new principle, asserted for the first and only time in this context. If we adopt this new theory--that granting tax relief is Federal funding--then how can tax relief for churches not be considered Federal funding in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? I am sure that many churches, synagogues, other houses of worship, and religiously-affiliated schools would be alarmed to discover this. We all should be very careful about establishing this new principle. Some additional tax penalties were in the bill when it was considered by the House Judiciary Committee. Those were removed and we now have new provisions that have never been considered by any Committee. We have no idea who made these changes or why they were made. But they demonstrate the fiction and hypocrisy that underlies this bill. This bill, unlike the version considered in the Judiciary Committee, no longer denies women who pay for abortion out-of-pocket the ability to claim those expenses as deductible medical expenses. And this version no longer taxes women when they use money they have set aside in flexible savings accounts or health savings accounts for abortion services. We welcome the removal of those tax penalty provisions, but these changes are not nearly enough. This version, unlike the bill considered by House Judiciary, also adds a notice requirement that requires insurance companies to provide a false notice to policyholders that they will be forced to pay a so- called ``abortion surcharge'' if they are in a plan that covers abortion. Existing law already requires plans to disclose to consumers whether a policy includes abortion. No further notice is necessary. And there is no surcharge for this coverage, as the new notice provision falsely suggests. The Affordable Care Act requires participating insurance plans to segregate monies for abortion services from all other funds, a measure my anti-choice colleagues insisted was necessary to prevent Federal funding of abortion. The segregation of a private dollar contribution of at least $1 a month is not a surcharge at all but merely a segregation of the premium. The new notice provision requires insurance companies to mislead consumers into mistakenly believing that they are paying a separate, additional charge for coverage of abortion and that they would pay a lesser premium for insurance that does not cover abortion. The harms caused by this bill are compounded by the fact that we are being forced to consider it under a closed rule, with no opportunity for amendment. The potential impact of this bill on the rights of individuals to spend their own funds to purchase comprehensive insurance that cover all of their health care needs (including the potential of an unplanned pregnancy) is significant. Members should have been given the chance to consider amendments and debate the impact of this bill--and, in particular, its untested tax provisions--before taking an up or down vote on the whole package. This bill is too important, the impact on the rights of all Americans to spend their own money in ways see fit too great, simply to close the door to any debate. I urge all my colleagues to vote no on this bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise to support the Conyers-Watt substitute. Unlike the underlying bill, the substitute takes effective steps to address the patent troll problem without including the unnecessary endangered so-called ``tort reform'' provisions. The substitute, like the bill, includes provisions providing customer stay exceptions, raising awareness in the small business community as to their rights when confronted with patent trolls, and increasing transparency of patents in the companies that own them. The substitute takes additional steps to address the problem. It includes a study of how to address bad-faith demand letters, which are scaring retailers and others into settling claims based on convenience as opposed to merit. And very importantly, the substitute does not include the loser-pays provisions of the underlying bill. Loser-pays laws have a chilling effect on justice. They would deter legitimate patent owners with meritorious claims from pursuing justice. In this country, the general rule is that each side in a legal proceeding pays its own attorney fees and costs. Most of the statutory exceptions that Congress has enacted have been geared towards encouraging private litigation to implement good public policy. Awards of attorneys' fees are often designed to help to equalize disputes between private individual plaintiffs and corporate or government defendants. Thus, attorneys' fees provisions are most often found in civil rights, environmental protection, and consumer protection statutes. The provision in this bill differs from other congressional exceptions in that it would require anyone who loses a patent claim to pay the attorneys' fees of even large corporate defendants. This is a giant deterrent to genuine inventors from filing good-faith suits to defend their valid patent claims. Therefore, I urge the adoption of the Conyers-Watt substitute which would drop the loser-pays provisions from the underlying bill while still including the key reforms that are present in the underlying bill and in the Senate bill drafted by Senator Leahy. I urge adoption of the substitute.

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairperson, I rise in reluctant support of this bill, the Innovation Act. The bill addresses the issue of patent trolls suing large companies, small businesses, and retailers over vague patents and using the cost of litigation as a weapon of extortion to secure settlement fees. The bill is real; the problem is real; and addressing it is important. The bill proposes to address the problem by providing end user defendants the ability to switch the suit to the manufacturer when confronted with patent trolls; it increases the transparency of patents and of the companies that own them; and it asks the judicial conference to review and amend certain discovery rules. These are reasonable changes to the current law which will help reduce the burden of patent trolls on our economy. Unfortunately, the bill does not deal with the problem of the diversion of user fees from the Patent Office. Unfortunately also, the authors of the bill have grafted the Republican agenda of so-called ``tort reform'' onto the bill. These provisions may severely limit the ability of real inventors and of those with meritorious patent claims to obtain justice in our courts. They are deeply troubling and ought to be addressed by amendments to the bill now and improvements to the bill when it is taken up by the Senate. The most troubling provision is the ``loser pays'' provision. I oppose ``loser pays'' provisions in general and in this context as well. The reason is one of fairness. I don't believe that only large corporations or the wealthiest members of society should have access to justice. Already, the threat of the enormous cost of litigation may act to prevent individuals from pursuing even the most meritorious civil liability claims. For most individuals and small businesses, the financial risk of having to pay the other side's costs and legal fees as well is one too great to bear no matter how valid the claim. It is simply not fair to unnecessarily punish individuals with serious and meritorious claims for seeking justice. Keep in mind, a person or a business can have a legally legitimate dispute regarding fact and law and, yet, can still ultimately lose the case. They shouldn't be unduly punished for trying to protect their interests in court. Furthermore, we don't want to create a situation in which experienced corporate defendants with enormous resources and expert legal talent can bully injured plaintiffs into unfair settlements due to the risks associated with losing a potentially successful case.

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. I have other concerns as well when it comes to some of the bill's modifications to the pleadings standards, but we must deal with the real problem of patent trolls exploiting the current legal system for illegitimate purposes. We must disrupt the business model of the patent troll. We must prevent the extortion of small businesses across America. I will support the bill today, but I want to encourage our friends in the Senate to do a better job in balancing the competing interests. I urge them, in particular, to insist on their version of the bill and to not allow the House's ``loser pays'' provision into the final bill that we vote on in the conference report.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2655, the so-called Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act. Unfortunately, rather than reduce abusive litigation, this bill will have just the opposite effect. We don't need to speculate about the disastrous effect of this legislation because we know from experience just what a fiasco it will be. The rule this legislation would restore was in effect from 1983 until 1993. It was a disaster. After a decade with this rule, the Judicial Conference, the rulemaking body for the Federal judiciary, rightly rejected it in favor of the rule we have today. In fact, this legislation goes even beyond the text of the 1983 rule, broadening the flawed mandatory sanctions even further. Worse still, the Judiciary Committee has not made even the pretense of considering this very radical change in civil procedure with any care. In fact, no hearings have been held on this legislation in this Congress. The process, or lack of it, demonstrates the wisdom of the Rules Enabling Act, in which Congress gave the Judicial Conference the responsibility for reviewing court rules and proposing changes. They have done this job admirably, expending years of careful study to existing rules, how they are functioning, and the implications of any proposed changes. While the sponsor has expressed the desire to limit unnecessary litigation, the experience with the old rule 11, which this bill would restore, was the exact opposite. Rule 11 litigation became a routine part of civil litigation, infecting one-third of all cases. Rather than serving as a disincentive, the old rule 11 actually made the system even more litigious and more costly. In the decade following the 1983 amendments, which this bill would restore, there were almost 7,000 reported rule 11 cases, becoming part of approximately one-third of all Federal lawsuits. Many civil cases, one-third, became two cases: one case on the merits and the other on dueling rule 11 complaints. Madam Speaker, it is rare in life that you get a controlled scientific experiment, but we had one here from 1983 to 1993. We saw the results, and they were disastrous, and only incautious people try to repeat disastrous scientific experiments. The drain on the courts' and the parties' resources caused the Judicial Conference to revisit the rule and to adopt the changes that this bill would undo. In a July 23, 2013, letter to Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers, Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and chair of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure and Judge David Campbell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona and chair of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules said: Experience, research, and thoughtful deliberation have shown that there is no need to reinstate the 1983 version of rule 11 that proved contentious and costly to litigants and diverted so much time and energy of the bar and bench. Doing so would add to, not improve, the problems of costs and delay that we are working to address. We urge you on behalf of the Rules Committee to not adopt the proposed legislation amending rule 11. I might add that, in committee, the majority quoted a survey of judges from 1993 saying that we shouldn't change the rules then. Today, the judges very much are very glad we changed the rule because they have lived under both systems. Madam Speaker, in addition to all these considerations of costs, the bill would hinder the evolution of the common law. One way the common law evolves is by people making claims in court, especially in civil rights cases. Civil rights cases often involve an argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of a new law, and often they have relied upon novel legal theories that are particularly susceptible to someone claiming that they are abusive or frivolous. Had the provisions of this bill been in place at the time, they could have discouraged a number of landmark civil right cases, including BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION of Topeka, and they could prevent new cases from ever being considered. Perhaps that is why all the civil rights groups, all the consumer rights groups oppose this bill. Madam Speaker, the courts have ample authority to sanction conduct that undermines the integrity of our legal system, but this legislation is the wrong solution in search of a problem. By taking us back to a time when rule 11 actually promoted routine, costly, and unnecessary litigation, this bill is a cure worse than the disease. We know what this rule does, and the courts rightly rejected it 20 years ago. We should benefit from that experience, not repeat the scientific experiment, and reject this legislation.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment would ensure that the transparency the bill's supporters demand from the victims of the asbestos industry will also be applied to the corporations that have inflicted so much damage and so much suffering over the years. The amendment would require that a defendant seeking the information required by the bill must himself provide information about threats to the public safety or health. This information must be provided to any other person or to any Federal or State entity that has the authority to enforce the law regulating activity relating to such information. This would go a long way to addressing the longstanding efforts by these corporations to conceal the facts surrounding their actions from the public, from their victims, and from government agencies charged with enforcing health and safety laws. Too often, cases are settled specifically in order to prevent evidence of wrongdoing from becoming public. More importantly, because of the secrecy of these settlements, other people who have been injured have no way of gaining important information about their exposure, their illnesses, or the settled liability of the companies that made them sick. Information about the concealment of wrongdoing never becomes public, and the people who have suffered have no way of knowing about the wrongdoing that caused their suffering or its extent. Governmental agencies that are charged with protecting the public health, whether in the workplace or the home, are deprived of the information they need to enforce the laws we have enacted. If the sponsors of this legislation really mean what they say about the need for transparency and accountability, they will support this amendment. There has been too long a record over too many decades of concealment, disassembly, and lawlessness, and too many lives destroyed because of that illegal conduct for us to tolerate the continued coverup. This amendment will go a long way toward remedying that situation and toward correcting the unjust imbalance in the current system. Without this amendment and the openness and clarity it would provide, this bill would favor only those who inflicted the harm and would give them yet another advantage over the victims. We should stand with the people whose lives have been destroyed, not with the corporations whose illegal and immoral conduct destroyed those lives. This amendment would prevent a situation where as part of a settlement compensating a victim it is agreed to keep key information relevant to the public health and safety secret so that more people will not be victimized. When such terms of the settlement are kept secret, other people will not learn that a given product contains asbestos or that a given product leaked asbestos and, therefore, will not know that they potentially were harmed, and government agencies may not learn facts necessary to exercise their responsibility to protect the public. At the very least, we should be evenhanded and demand of the wrongdoers the same transparency that this bill demands of their victims, a transparency which will enable other victims to understand their remedies and will enable government agencies to better enforce the law. Unless you want to assist tortfeasors and wrongdoers in concealing the effects of their wrongdoing, you should support this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. The underlying bill imposes burdens on victims of asbestos poisoning because of an unsubstantiated allegation that the trusts, set up by the tortfeasors, by the giant corporations that caused the problem, may be suffering some fraud, although there is no specific about that. The amendment simply says that if we are going to request information of the victims, we should request minimally that the representatives of the tortfeasors, the trusts, tell us the information that will prevent further people from being harmed. I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. In reply to the gentleman from Virginia, the amendment refers to ``such party agrees to make available information.'' Such party is asbestos trusts, not a small business. So I don't know what he is talking about with small business requirements being imposed by this amendment, and the amendment deals with information that the trust must make available. It does not deal with the underlying burdens that the bill places on victims, which is what the gentleman was referring to. This has nothing to do with small business. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member of the committee.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this bill is far from perfect, but it is a good step forward. I have concerns about the environmental streamlining sections. There are commonsense things we could do to advance projects more efficiently, but limiting public input is not one of them. The best way to expedite projects is to ensure there is agreement among stakeholders and to identify potential problems early, which is one of the main benefits of the NEPA process. The real obstacle is lack of adequate funding. I am pleased the bill increases the amount that can be spent out of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and expands the eligibility for use of these funds. The bill also requires the Corps to make specific project recommendations as part of the study funded in the Sandy supplemental appropriations bill on reducing the risk of flood and storm damage along the North Atlantic coast. This is an important provision, but we should do much more. We are still not doing enough to prepare for climate change, rising sea levels, and extreme weather events. Whether or not you believe these events are linked to global warming, the fact is that extreme weather events are happening more often, and we would be fools not to respond to that fact. It has been 7 years since Congress last passed a WRDA bill. We are long overdue in reauthorizing these critical infrastructure projects. This bill is a bipartisan compromise, and I will support it with the hope that we can improve it as it moves through the process.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we are debating a continuing resolution, a budget. A budget deals with amounts that we appropriate. This budget represents great compromise--$250 billion less than the President first proposed. But we are told we cannot pass this continuing resolution, we cannot keep the government open unless we repeal or delay the Affordable Care Act, an act which was fought over in the last Presidential election, which was passed by both Houses of Congress, signed by the President. The President campaigned for reelection saying he would implement it; the Republicans said don't. The President and the Democratic Senate were reelected. We think the Affordable Care Act will help more Americans get affordable health insurance. Republicans don't agree. So they should campaign on it in the next election. If they can get the votes, elect enough Senators, et cetera, repeal it. But that's not what they're doing. They are blackmailing the country. They are saying they will shut down the government, or worse--they will destroy the full faith and credit of the United States in a few weeks if we don't repeal or delay ObamaCare. This is antidemocratic. It's like a 1930s gangster film--that's a nice government you got there, that's a nice economy you got there; pity if it should happen to blow up if you don't pay us off by giving us what we want. What if the Democratic majority in the Senate said: we won't approve a continuing resolution; we will shut down the government unless both Houses pass a strong gun control bill, or an immigration bill with a fast track to citizenship? The Republicans would be greatly outraged, would be rightly outraged at that blackmail. But that's what they are doing here today. The minority is blackmailing the majority of the country. This is subversive to democratic government. Government by blackmail cannot be allowed to destroy the American form of government, which is what this attempt represents. If we give into this, then the minority can rule against the majority. If you want to repeal the Affordable Care Act, elect a President, elect a majority in both Houses, and go do it. But we must not give into this threat to democratic government and transform it into a different type of government. That's why we must pass the continuing resolution without these subversive amendments.