Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits funds from being used to detain cleared individuals held at Guantanamo. Of the 166 people currently being held there, 86 have been cleared for release; that is, they have not been charged with any offense. They have been found guilty of nothing, and they have been judged by our military to pose no threat to the United States if released. We should release them now. Holding these 86 people who have been cleared for release is against everything we claim to stand for. In response to this very situation, President Obama asked: Is this who we are? I hope today we will answer: No, we are better than that. I hope we support this amendment and move expeditiously to support the release of these detainees. It is truly astonishing that in 2013 the United States continues to hold people indefinitely who have not been charged, let alone convicted of any crime, who admittedly do not pose any threat to the United States. They should be released. Guantanamo is an affront to America and to the founding principle of the United States that no person should be deprived of liberty without due process of law. Our continuing to hold prisoners indefinitely, without charge and without trial, is a rebuke to our professed support of liberty. If they've been judged not to pose a threat and we hold them anyway, what kind of message are we sending? By what claim of right do we hold people in jail who have been charged with nothing, whom we're not bringing to trial, and who we have decided pose no threat to us? What are we saying about the United States and our values? We must change course and we ought to support this amendment. Now, I know some will say these are dangerous terrorists. No, they're not. They're people who were captured in some way who have been judged by our military not to pose a threat to the United States, who have not been charged as terrorists, who have not been judged as terrorists. Some of them may be simply victims to the fact that we paid bounties to people in Afghanistan to turn in people who they said were terrorists. The Hatfields turned in the McCoys because--why not?--we were giving them a couple of thousand dollars. So anyone who has not been charged with a crime, who has not been convicted, and who we have already decided poses no threat ought to be released. And, therefore, this amendment says no funds may be used to continue their confinement. I urge its adoption. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairperson, this amendment stops the government from misusing section 215, to engage in the dragnet collection of all of our personal telephone records. Congress did not grant the executive the authority to collect everything it wants so long as it limits any subsequent search of that data. This amendment restores the requirement that records sought are relevant to an authorized foreign intelligence or terrorist investigation. It restores the minimal relevant standard required by Congress but ignored by successive administrations. No administration should be permitted to operate above or beyond the law as they have done in this respect. I therefore urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the Amash-Conyers amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left? How much time does the gentleman have left?

Mr. NADLER. I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, it would serve a purpose if people actually read the amendment. The amendment says none of the funds made available may be used to detain an individual who has been approved for release or transfer to a foreign country. We hear from the gentleman from Florida, these people are there for a reason. Yes, when we arrest somebody, a murder is committed, a rape is committed, we arrest somebody. But then, the grand jury says, no, we're not going to indict this person; there's not enough evidence. Do we hold them in jail indefinitely, forever, even though there's no charge, even though the District Attorney says we made a mistake; it's somebody else; they didn't do it? No. Because maybe they'll commit a crime? That's antithetical to every notion of what the United States is about. These are 86 people who are not charged as terrorists, who we have no evidence are terrorists, and who have been judged by the military and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the intelligence community to pose no threat to us. By what claim of right do we hold them in jail? The United States, at this point, is no better than a kidnapper if it holds in jail people whom it charges with no crime and judges safe for release. Approve the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been described and offered as an alternative to the Amash-Conyers amendment that we will consider next. It is not. This amendment restates the existing ban on the intentional targeting of United States persons under section 702. It also places into law for the next fiscal year the Obama administration's current ban on collecting the contents of the communications of U.S. persons under section 215. I agree with these prohibitions. But they have nothing to do with the current misuse of section 215 to engage in the suspicionless, bulk collection of Americans' telephone records. The dragnet collection under section 215 telephone metadata program reveals call information--including all numbers dialed, all incoming phone numbers and call duration--but not the content of communications. Therefore, this amendment would have no impact whatsoever on this misuse of section 215. Metadata reveals highly personal and sensitive information, including, for example, when and how often one calls the doctor, a journalist, or the local Tea Party or ACLU affiliate. By tracing the pattern of calls, the government can paint a detailed picture of anyone's personal, professional, and political associations and activities. Congress never authorized this type of unchecked, sweeping surveillance of our citizens. It is this problem--the indiscriminate, bulk collection of metadata under section 215--that we need to fix right now. The Amash-Conyers amendment does so by restoring the required reasonable relationship between the collection of records and specific persons being investigated under section 215. The Amash-Conyers amendment ensures that this standard is not ignored by the administration or by the FISA Court, as is happening now. This amendment does not fix the problem with 215. The Amash-Conyers amendment does. However you vote on this amendment, and I intend to vote in favor of it, it is imperative that we also vote in favor of the Amash-Conyers amendment because this amendment, although doing no harm, does not solve the problems that Congress and Mr. Sensenbrenner and many others have articulated with respect to the misuse of section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.

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

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit any funds in the bill from being used to construct or expand detention facilities at Guantanamo. The bill contains $249 million to convert temporary detention facilities into more permanent structures. But the administration wants to close Guantanamo and to release or transfer the detainees. So why waste $429 million to construct facilities that will not be used? Because many in Congress want to keep the detainees in Guantanamo forever. Now, we have, we know, 166 detainees in Guantanamo; 86 should be released immediately. The gentleman from Florida says that they're bad people; they are terrorists; they're there for a reason. No, they're not. They're there for different reasons. Some because they were handed over for bounties by rival militias or rival clans. Some because a mistake was made. Some because they're terrorists. But we make distinctions. The gentleman says we shouldn't release them until a careful assessment has been made. Well, a careful assessment has been made: 86 of them, half of those in Guantanamo, have been cleared for release. That is to say, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the intelligence agencies have determined that these 86 people were not terrorists and were not likely to pose a threat to the United States if released. So they're guilty of nothing. They have been tried for nothing. We don't say that people are bad people, we ought to hold them in jail indefinitely without a trial normally, except here. So we ought to release the 86 who have been cleared for release immediately, and the others we ought to try, put on trial. There's a separate dispute whether that should be an Article III court or a military tribunal. I prefer an Article III court, but either way, put them on trial in front of a court or in front of a military tribunal and let them be tried. Perhaps most of them will be guilty and put them in jail for long periods of time. Maybe some will be innocent. That's what the justice system is about. Are we really going to say that Guantanamo is separate? Anyone who is unlucky enough to be sent there because at one time we thought maybe they were dangerous should stay there indefinitely until they die without a trial? The assessment has been made for 86 of them. They have been judged not to be guilty, not to be a terrorist, and not to be a threat. That assessment has been made according to law, and these people ought to be released. The other 80 ought to be tried and, if convicted, ought to be put in prison in the United States. We have hundreds of terrorists in maximum security prisons in the United States. There's no reason a few more couldn't be put there, and we could save $249 million. Guantanamo was originally set up because it was thought by the Bush administration that if we held people in Guantanamo they could be tried or handled without having the constitutional rights of someone in the United States, but the Supreme Court said no. The people in Guantanamo have the same rights as if they were held in the United States. So it doesn't change what will happen to them, whether they're kept in prison in the United States or in Guantanamo. So let's release the 86 who ought to be released because they've been adjudged that they should be released by the Joint Chiefs and by the intelligence agencies. Let's try the others, and let's keep them in jail if they're adjudged guilty. Let's proceed with American justice notions and do ourselves proud, and let's stops wasting billions of dollars on Guantanamo. So this amendment says don't permanentize what should be and will be temporary, however temporary it is. Don't waste $249 million on making these facilities permanent. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have left?

Mr. NADLER. I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which would remove the existing limitations on transferring detainees out of Guantanamo. Our Federal courts have a proven record of prosecuting terrorists, and our Federal prison system is already imprisoning hundreds of convicted terrorists in facilities here in the United States. It makes no sense to have an external facility, especially one in Cuba, of all places. Guantanamo is a continuing stain on our national honor. It should be closed now. Of the 166 detainees at Guantanamo, 86 have been cleared for release; that is to say, they have been found guilty of nothing and judged to pose no danger. There is no reason and no right for us to hold them further. The detainees will gain no additional rights by being held in the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that detainees have the same constitutional rights at Guantanamo as they do here. We cannot hold people indefinitely. People may not be terrorists and may be guilty of nothing. We must restore who we are and vote for this amendment.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I urge my colleagues to support the Nadler-Garamendi-Polis amendment to eliminate additional funding for a new, costly, unproven, and unnecessary missile defense site. Our amendment would cut $70 million that was added by the Appropriations Committee for an east coast missile defense system that the Pentagon says it does not want or need. In a June 10 letter to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, Vice Admiral James Syring, director of the Missile Defense Agency and Lieutenant General Richard Formica, Commander, Joint Functional Command for Integrated Missile Defense, unequivocally stated: There is no validated military requirement to deploy an east coast missile defense site. Admiral Syring told the House Armed Services Committee earlier this year that he would not be able to use additional funds for an east coast site this year because the Pentagon has only begun to study the concept. And the Pentagon already has the funding it needs for this study in FY 2014. Furthermore, the technology is still unproven at this time. There have been no successful intercept tests for the past 5 years of the system that might be deployed on the east coast. The recent test failure of the ground-based mid-course system that would be deployed on the east coast is another reason not to rush forward with deployment. In a time of budget deficits and looming sequester of funds, we cannot afford to spend money on a program that the military says it does not yet need and does not yet work. The Pentagon says the current system, based in Alaska and California, is sufficient to defend the entire continental United States against a limited attack from North Korea and Iran. The CBO says an east coast base would cost approximately $3.5 billion over the next 5 years. Admiral Syring and General Formica said there are currently more cost-effective and less expensive alternatives to improving the defense of the U.S. homeland than an east coast missile site. It is a pure waste of money to deploy a missile defense site on the east coast before a need for such a site is identified and before the interceptors can be proved effective and suitable in operationally realistic tests. So we should not have this funding now. I reserve the balance of my time. U.S. Senate, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 6, 2013. Vice Admiral James D. Syring, USN, Director, Missile Defense Agency, Department of Defense, Ft. Belvoir, VA. Lieutenant General Richard P. Formica, USA, Commander, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, Huntsville, AL. Dear Vice Admiral Syring and Lieutenant General Formica: Following the briefing you provided earlier this week, I am writing to request. your responses to the following questions regarding possible future options for homeland ballistic missile defense: 1. Is there currently a validated military requirement to deploy an East Coast missile defense site? 2. Do you favor Congress mandating the deployment of an East Coast site before the completion of the pending Environmental Impact Statement required by section 227 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal-Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239)? 3. At this time do you believe there is a more effective and less expensive alternative to an East Coast missile defense site that is also available sooner than deployment of an East Coast missile defense site? I would appreciate your responses to these questions no later than June 10, 2013, so that we may consider them for our upcoming markup of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. I have written the questions in a way that will hopefully facilitate a prompt and unclassified response. Sincerely, Carl Levin, Chairman.

Mr. NADLER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. NADLER. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the question is, will we waste the money? We are told by the director of the Missile Defense Agency and the general commanding the Joint Functional Command that they cannot use the money. There is no validated military requirement to deploy an east coast missile defense site, and he would not be able to use additional funds for an east coast site this year because they have only begun to study the concept. It may be that in the future we may want an east coast site. But to appropriate this money now is a pure waste of money because now they are simply studying the concept. They can't spend it; they probably won't spend it. Why waste the money? I urge people to vote for this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Madam Speaker, we're back again considering cruel and unconstitutional legislation that would curtail women's reproductive rights. This bill contains a nearly total ban on abortions prior to viability, which the Supreme Court says violates women's rights under the Constitution. Just recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit struck down a nearly identical Arizona statute, saying: Since Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case law concerning the constitutional protection accorded women with respect to the decision whether to undergo an abortion has been unalterably clear regarding one basic point . . . a woman has a constitutional right to choose to terminate her pregnancy before the fetus is viable. A prohibition on the exercise of that right is per se unconstitutional. Perhaps most cruelly, this bill fails even to provide any exception to protect a woman's health. The exception for a woman's life is so narrowly written and so convoluted that even a physician wanting to comply with the law in good faith would have trouble determining when the woman is sufficiently in extremis that her condition qualifies. So the morally arrogant authors of this bill would tell a woman who faces permanent injury or disability that she must bear that calamity by carrying her pregnancy to term. Recently added language is supposed to take the heat off the recent uproar over the absence of a rape and incest exception in this bill, but the bill would provide an exception for rape or incest only if the victim first reported it to the authorities. In the best of all possible worlds, every assault would be reported and every rapist prosecuted. But we all know that there are many reasons why rapes and incest often don't get reported--the toll our criminal justice system takes on rape victims: the humiliation, the harassment, the psychological trauma. Why force women to be victimized twice? The only reason we have been given by the supporters of this bill is that women lie about having been raped. So the sponsors are telling us not only that women are not competent to make this very personal decision for themselves and that we here are more competent--we should substitute our judgments for theirs--but women are also too dishonest to be believed when they say they were raped. This bill would use the trauma of the assault to erect another unnecessary and cruel barrier to a raped woman. Congress should not side with her abuser to force her to carry that abuser's child to term. The incest exception applies only if the victim was a minor when the incidents occurred. Why? Do my colleagues believe that this was nice, consensual sex? That if a young woman is abused by her father from age 8 and he gets her pregnant at 18, it doesn't count? Or that she asked for it and deserves it? These restrictions are new. The rape and incest exceptions in the previous legislation passed by this House have no such conditions or restrictions. Even the Hyde amendment, embodied in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, says: The limitations established in the preceding section shall not apply to abortion if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest. No conditions, no restrictions, no ifs, ands, or buts. Some Members want to redefine rape and incest to satisfy an extremist base that wants to outlaw all abortions, even for victims of rape and incest. I hope that we can agree that no woman should ever be forced to carry her abuser's child. I urge my colleagues to reject this cruel and unconstitutional legislation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith-Moran-Nadler amendment, which provides a six-part plan for closing Gitmo. The amendment will remove the existing limitations on transfers, strike the current requests for construction at Gitmo, and end funding for the facility on December 31, 2014. The time to close Guantanamo is now. It is a stain on our national honor. We are holding 166 people at Gitmo, 86 of whom have been cleared for release, that is to say they have been found guilty of nothing and judged not to pose any danger. There is no reason and no right for us to hold them further. Mr. Chairman, I wonder which of our colleagues doesn't believe in the American system of justice. I wonder which one of us does not trust our own American court. I wonder who among us does not believe in the Bill of Rights, who does not believe in the right to counsel or that people should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. What we have at Gitmo is a system that is an affront to those beliefs and to America. In the last decade, we have begun to let go of our freedoms bit by bit with each new executive order, each new court decision and, yes, each new act of Congress. We have begun giving away our rights to privacy, a right to our day in court when the government harms us; and with this legislation, we are continuing down the path of destroying the right to be free from imprisonment without due process of law. I want to commend the gentleman from Washington and the gentleman from Virginia for fighting to close the detention facility at Guantanamo. The language in this bill without our amendment prohibits moving any detainees into the United States and guarantees that we will continue holding people indefinitely, people who are not necessarily terrorists and who we only suspect to be terrorists and have not had a day in court to prove they are or are not terrorists. We will continue to hold them indefinitely without charge, contrary to every tradition this country stands for, contrary to due process and civil rights. Because of this momentous challenge to the founding principles of the United States, that no person may be deprived of liberty without due process of law--and certainly not indefinitely without due process of law--we must close the detention facilitate at Gitmo now in order to restore our national honor. They will have no additional constitutional rights. The Supreme Court ruled that they have the same constitutional rights at Guantanamo as they do here. We must close this facility and restore our national honor. Support this amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of the Smith-Gibson amendment. When we considered the fiscal year 2012 version of this bill, I argued in opposition to sections 1021 and 1022. I argued then--and I still believe now--that these provisions go far beyond the AUMF to suggest that the President has the authority to detain even U.S. citizens without charge indefinitely. The AUMF gives the President no such authority. Clearly, we must roll back these provisions. The Smith-Gibson amendment prohibits the detention without charge of any person arrested or detained in the United States, and it is the first step towards restoring the due process of law. It is a good first step, but the scope is limited to U.S. soil and to the present AUMF. We should do more. That's why I've introduced the No Detention Without Charge Act, which would apply to all persons in U.S. custody--at home and overseas--and to all Authorizations to Use Military Force--present and future. It not only prohibits detention without charge of people arrested in the United States, but it also prohibits the detention of any person anywhere, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution and the law of war, and it restores a meaningful right of action for detainees to challenge the legality of the detentions. The notion that the United States ought to conduct itself according to the Constitution and the law of war should not be controversial. Smith-Gibson takes the first step, and I have proposed the next, which is towards affirming our values and securing our liberty. This clarifies that the AUMF does not give any President the authority to detain people without the due process of law and to detain them indefinitely. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to sign on as cosponsors of my bill but to, right now, support the Smith-Gibson amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Goodlatte and Chairman Smith and I are in agreement, I think, on the goal, though I think the three of us mutually disagree on elements of this amendment. The amendment, while intended to enhance protections for U.S. citizens, in fact does the opposite. Right now, Americans on U.S. soil cannot be detained indefinitely without charge or trial. Rather than affirming this fundamental principle, the amendment implicitly authorizes the military to detain Americans on U.S. soil indefinitely by premising its protection on the mistaken assertion that the AUMF, the Authorization for Military Force, allows such detention--which I disagree with Chairman Smith, it does not. No such authority exists. The AUMF does not grant this authority, and we should do nothing to suggest otherwise. In fact, we should be taking clear and immediate steps to ban indefinite military detention altogether. The Smith-Gibson amendment, which I support, takes a good first step in doing this by prohibiting the detention without charge of any person arrested or detained in the United States. We should also pass my No Detention Without Charge Act, which would cure the problem altogether by preventing indefinite detention without charge or trial for all persons in U.S. custody, at home or overseas. Secondly, this amendment would create greater uncertainty in habeas corpus cases and raises significant constitutional concerns. The amendment seeks to raise the burden on the U.S. Government to prove that a U.S. citizen is an unprivileged enemy belligerent. But that is not the same as requiring proof that the person is being lawfully detained, which is what habeas corpus is designed to do. The creation of a two-tiered habeas system with one set of standards for U.S. citizens and different, lesser standards for noncitizens raises very troubling constitutional concerns. Our Constitution simply does not permit us to permit greater basic due process rights based solely on citizenship. Although the chairman, Mr. Goodlatte, is right in citing the case that he cited, he talked about connection with the United States. Someone who is in the United States--physically in the United States-- and is arrested there has the same constitutional Fourth Amendment protections as an American citizen. Any changes to habeas protections should be studied carefully through regular order, not through rushed attachments to the defense authorization act. Passing this amendment would be a serious and dangerous mistake. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commend the non-profit organization Sing for Hope, located in midtown Manhattan and dedicated to making the arts accessible to all. The Sing for Hope vision of ``art for all'' reflects their belief that the arts have the unique power to uplift, unite, and transform individuals and communities. They rely on the time and services donated by over 1,000 local New York City artists and performers who perform in schools, community centers and healthcare facilities. The mission of Sing for Hope is defined by the volunteer service of artists, and their belief in the transformative power of the arts. The co-founding Directors of Sing for Hope, Camille Zamora and Monica Yunus, are internationally acclaimed opera singers who met as students at Juilliard. They established Sing for Hope in 2006 as a vehicle to encourage artists to give back to their communities. Since then, Sing for Hope has brought the magic of the arts to underserved communities throughout New York City and implemented a variety of outreach programs serving children, senior citizens, and people recovering from illness at healthcare facilities. This summer marks the return of a very popular program created by Sing for Hope--``The Sing for Hope Pianos.'' Eighty-eight colorfully decorated pianos, which symbolize the 88 keys of a piano, are placed throughout New York City's public spaces in all five boroughs, for all members of the public to play and to enjoy. After the project ends, the pianos are then donated to underresourced schools and hospitals. ``The Sing for Hope Pianos'' are a striking embodiment of the role the arts play in our lives, and remind us that everyone should have access to treasured cultural resources. This year's return of ``The Sing for Hope Pianos'' has been made possible by the dedicated generosity of several entities: Chobani, Inc., a New York State-based company led by its President & CEO, Hamdi Ulukaya, as well as the Arnhold Foundation in honor of Sissy Arnhold, the Anna-Maria and Stephen Kellen Foundation, and the Bill and Ann Ziff Foundation. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking and congratulating Sing for Hope on this year's ``Sing for Hope Pianos'' project, as well as their ongoing dedication to volunteer service and community engagement, through encouraging greater access to the arts.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Northern Route Approval Act, which would deem the Keystone XL pipeline approved. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration just measured almost 400 parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide, well beyond the 350 parts per million many scientists warn is the level we must not cross to avoid severe climate impacts. Any rational person who doesn't want more Hurricane Sandys or more Oklahoma hurricanes would recognize that we must focus on developing renewable energy sources and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, and yet this bill mandates the approval of a pipeline that will allow Canada to deliver 830,000 barrels per day of tar sands oil to gulf coast refineries. Tar sands oil is difficult to extract, and the process is destructive and toxic. Producing tar sands oil results in at least 14 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil. For those concerned about climate change, the Keystone pipeline is a nonstarter. We cannot allow such a gigantic and irreversible step backward in the fight against global warming. H.R. 3 goes well beyond the merits of the pipeline itself. This bill sets a dangerous precedent, undercutting our environmental laws and short-circuiting the review process. It deems the pipeline approved by Congressional mandate. It locks in the administrative record as of a date certain, eliminates the requirement for a Presidential permit normally required for cross-border pipelines, and it mandates the issuance of permits, not just for construction of the pipeline, but for operation and maintenance as well, or, in other words, in perpetuity. It deems all the environmental and safety laws satisfied regardless of the facts. It also manages to undermine a citizen's fair access to judicial review. The bill appears to grant the right of judicial review by giving the D.C. Circuit jurisdiction to hear any challenge to the adequacy of the environmental impact statement. But the bill also states that the EIS ``shall be considered to satisfy all requirements'' of the National Environmental Policy Act. So, the court is told, you have jurisdiction, but here is what you are going to find; never mind your own judgment. The bill also states as a matter of law that section 404 of the Clean Water Act, section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Endangered Species Act are all satisfied. So the fix is in before you ever get to court. I'm not sure what would be left for a court to review.