Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this bill would raise the debt ceiling, but only insofar as necessary and only for the purpose of paying our debts to China and to Social Security. Not raising the debt ceiling beyond what this bill does would mandate not paying Medicare beneficiaries or our troops overseas or our veterans here at home or anyone owed money for working for the Federal Government and would generally collapse the economy by forcing default on most of our debts. Raising the debt ceiling merely allows us to pay debts we have previously incurred--all debts previously incurred. We should recognize this simple reality by eliminating the debt ceiling and passing responsible budgets. But Republicans now use the debt ceiling to hold the entire country hostage unless the demands that they haven't figured out yet are met. This reminds me of a 1930s gangster film: it's a nice restaurant you've got over there; it's a nice economy you've got over there; pity if it should happen to blow up if you don't meet our demands. This Republican tactic has already brought about the first downgrade in the U.S. credit rating in history and has brought about brutal spending cuts that have punished the middle class, failed to help the millions of Americans looking for work, and weakened the safety net for working families and seniors. Mr. Speaker, it was two wars and two Bush tax cuts and 8 years of irresponsibility that brought us the deficit in the last budget adopted under George Bush of 10.1 percent of GDP. We have reduced that budget deficit in 3 years from 10.1 percent of GDP to 4.8 percent today. This is the fastest deficit reduction since the demobilization after World War II. Economists agree that the draconian austerity decreed by the sequester is slowing our economic growth, eliminating millions of jobs, and could create a double-dip recession. We have seen this in Europe where, starting 2\1/2\ years ago, they adopted the policies the Republicans want. They adopted severe austerity and they cut budgets too much. The result is a double-dip recession. With their negative economic growth, we're still at positive economic growth. We're hearing from our Republican friends today about how endangered our credit rating is. Our credit rating is so endangered, despite their frightening rhetoric, that we are paying the lowest interest rates on our bonds ever, and our bonds are selling higher. People are getting in line to buy our bonds because our credit rating is, in fact, quite good. Yet, in spite of presenting the American people with a plan to invest in our economy and create jobs for the 12 million Americans looking for work, Republicans are once again intent on manufacturing a crisis that will only increase unemployment. We should not develop a plan for how to generate and then manage a devastating default that will put our economy into chaos; we should repeal the sequester, slow down our deficit reduction, spend the money on highways and bridges and infrastructure investing and putting our people back to work so that more people work, unemployment goes down, government spending and unemployment insurance and food stamps go down, and the economy improves and our unemployment also goes down. That's the proper path. What the Republicans are trying to do would say, Don't do that. Follow the path of Europe. Get 12 percent or 15 percent unemployment. This bill would head us in that direction. That's not the direction we should be going. We ought to safeguard our credit and not even contemplate the possibility of default.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be in Washington, DC, on March 18-19, 2013. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 77 and 78, authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds; ``no'' on rollcall vote Nos. 79 and 80, ordering the previous question and the rule providing for consideration of the House Budget Resolution; and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 82 relating to committee expenses for the 113th Congress.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the radical Republican budget, which will increase unemployment and savage Medicare and Medicaid and other programs that families depend on, mostly to finance tax cuts for the rich and partly to fix the deficit crisis that we have already tamed. In 2009, the deficit was 10.1 percent of GDP. Next year, it will be down to 5.3 percent. This is the largest and fastest reduction in deficits since the demobilization after World War II. To add insult to injury, the Republican budget would make sweeping, regressive changes to the Tax Code, which would raise taxes on middle class families by up to $3,000. Millionaires, however, would actually see a tax cut averaging $245,000 a year. This is just wrong. Working families should never have to pay more just so the rich can pay less. We no longer, if we ever did, have a deficit crisis. With 12 million people searching for employment and with almost 5 million Americans without jobs for more than 6 months, we do have a jobs crisis. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the net effect of the Republican budget would be to decrease the gross domestic product by 1.7 percent, resulting in 2 million additional jobs lost in 2014 alone. If budgets are truly a reflection of our values, then what does it say about the priorities of House Republicans when their budget increases health care costs for seniors, cuts 2 million jobs, and hits middle class families with a tax increase in order to subsidize another tax cut for the rich? In contrast, the Back to Work budget addresses the jobs crisis head on by creating nearly 7 million jobs in the first year, by making stark investments in our infrastructure, schools, and transits. It protects Medicare, Medicaid, education, and family support systems. Conservative governments in Europe have instituted the same austerity policies offered by the Republican budget. The result has been a double-dip recession and 12 percent unemployment. We should learn from their stupidity. I rise today to oppose the radical Republican budget, which is merely a repackaging of the same extreme agenda that the American people rejected last fall. Simply put, this bill is a disaster. The House Republicans' budget would again try to end Medicare as we know it by replacing the guarantee of health coverage with a private voucher program that would reduce benefits. This throws seniors back onto the mercy of the private insurance market, while every year giving them less and less of the health benefits they have earned through a lifetime of hard work. The Republican budget would not only make permanent the arbitrary, across-the-board budget cuts known as `sequestration,' it would go further--making even more savage cuts to domestic programs. Critical social services like food stamps, college assistance for low-income families, Section 8 housing, home heating assistance, and Medicaid--all would face drastic cuts. Under the Republican proposal, our transportation investments would be cut by 20% over the next 10 years, exacerbating the challenges posed by our outdated roads, bridges, and airports. The bill also completely eliminates support for PBS, NPR, AmeriCorps, and the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities. The Republican budget makes all of these cuts while refusing to cut a dime of military spending. What's worse, the Republican plan actually reverses planned reductions to military spending by increasing cuts to vital social programs--a callously unfair proposal that will have terrible consequences for millions of American families. To add insult to injury, the bill before us today would make sweeping, regressive changes to the tax code which would raise taxes on middle class families by up to $3,000. Millionaires, however, would actually see a tax cut that averages $245,000 a year. This is just wrong. Working families should never have to pay more just so the rich can pay less, which is just one more reason why we must defeat this bill. We no longer, if we ever did, have a deficit crisis. What we have is a jobs crisis, with 12 million people searching for employment, and almost 5 million Americans without a job for more than 6 months. In contrast with the Republican spending plan, the Back to Work Budget addresses the jobs crisis head-on by creating nearly 7 million jobs in the first year by making historic investments in our infrastructure, schools, and transit. It would enable States and local governments to hire laid-off teachers, cops, and firefighters, putting them back to work in strengthening our communities. The Back to Work Budget would preserve our commitment to seniors by making no cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security, while reducing health care costs by negotiating drug prices, increasing competition in the health care marketplace, and reducing fraud. Our budget would also adopt a common-sense tax system that asks the wealthiest to pay their fair share while lowering the tax burden on middle class families. We would also extend the Making Work Pay tax credit to help low-wage workers get back to work and providing for their families. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the net effect of all of these policies would decrease GDP by 1.7%, resulting in 2 million jobs lost in 2014 alone. If budgets are truly a reflection of our values, then what does it say about the priorities of House Republicans when their budget increases health care costs for seniors, cuts 2 million jobs, and hits middle class families with a tax increase in order to subsidize another tax cut for the rich? The American people rejected this extremist ideology last fall, and I hope that my colleagues follow their lead and reject this bill today. But the larger problem with the Republican budget is that it will increase unemployment and savage Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs that families depend upon, in order to fix a deficit ``crisis'' which we have already tamed. In 2009 the deficit was 10.1% of GDP. By next year, it will be down to 5.3%. This is the largest and fastest reduction in deficits since the demobilization after World War II. Basic economics tells us that government should pay off debt during good times while protecting jobs and middle class security during bad times. By balancing revenues with investments and creating millions of new jobs, the Back to Work Budget would produce significant economic growth while reducing the deficit by $4.4 trillion over 10 years. But callous, unbalanced cuts to domestic programs, particularly of the magnitude that House Republicans are proposing, would spell disaster for our economic recovery. While GOP leaders claim to be making tough choices when it comes to our spending priorities, again and again they seem to only be making the wrong choices. They choose tax breaks for millionaires and the largest corporations over tax fairness for the middle class. They choose to reduce access to health care by voucherizing Medicare instead of protecting the benefits that seniors have earned through a lifetime of hard work. They choose to avoid required reductions in military spending by instead cutting programs that feed hungry children, heat family homes, and make college affordable. Conservative governments in Europe have instituted the same austerity policies offered by the Republican budget. The result is a double-dip recession and 12% unemployment. We should learn from their stupidity.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, this bill is about women. It is about our sisters and daughters. It is about combating violence that no human being should ever face--rape, assault, sexual assault, human trafficking. By offering an amendment that will further delay and even endanger the passage of the bill, Republicans are not just standing up for the men who abuse immigrants or for the men who rape Native Americans; they are delaying justice and counseling and health care and protection for everyone. The Republican amendment would roll back protections for immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse by making it harder to obtain U visas. The new restrictions would deter undocumented immigrants from reporting assaults and from cooperating with police, leaving victims vulnerable. The bipartisan Senate bill would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the eligibility for grant programs under VAWA, and it would include sexual orientation and gender identity as classes. The Republican amendment, by deleting these provisions, appears to say, if you are gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender, it's okay to beat you up, that VAWA will not help you. This is the Republican idea of equality in the 21st century. Approval of the Republican amendment would delay the bill for weeks or months, or even kill the bill altogether, as it did in the last Congress. I hope that is not the true motive behind the amendment. However, the fact that Republicans in Congress have been waging a war on women from the moment they took over control of the House does make you wonder. It is time to reject this cynical ploy and pass the Senate's bipartisan Violence Against Women Act reauthorization now without amendment. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting against the Republican amendment and for the Senate bill. We don't need a retrogressive House bill that goes back on existing protections and endangers passage of any bill. The Senate did a fine job on a bipartisan basis. We should pass its bill without delay and not engage in partisan retrogressive conduct. Friends of VAWA Coalition Calls on the House to Defeat the Substitute to S. 47 and Pass the Bipartisan Senate Bill Washington, DC--The 73 undersigned national organizations issued the following statement opposing the House Republican substitute for the bi-partisan Senate bill (S. 47), Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which includes provisions to protect vulnerable communities, including Native American women, college students, and LGBT individuals: The House Republican Leadership's bill puts a barrier to the protection of victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Conversely, the Senate version of VAWA, which was adopted with strong bipartisan support (78-22), addresses gaps in current service programs that left Native American women, college students, LGBT individuals, and other vulnerable groups without vital protections. Today, House Republican Leadership will offer a substitute to the bipartisan Senate version of VAWA (S. 47), eliminating these important provisions and weakening the Office of Violence Against Women. These omissions deny critical services to many victims and reinforce the perception of the Republican Party as hostile to the needs of women, college students, LGBT persons, and communities of color. The House substitute: Limits the authority S. 47 provides to tribal authorities to prosecute non-tribal members who commit domestic violence or sexual assault crimes on tribal land. This makes it more difficult for Native American women to hold their abusers accountable. Native Americans are disproportionately affected by dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Eliminates provisions of the Senate bill that would require colleges and universities to keep students safe and informed about policies on sexual assault and enhance programs that help to prevent and combat sexual violence on college campuses. Drops the anti-discrimination provisions from S. 47, which were designed to ensure that LGBT victims receive the services they need regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation. Studies have shown that LGBT individuals are victims of domestic and sexual violence at equal or greater levels than the rest of the population. Even in today's polarized political climate, we should at least be able to agree that when we send our daughters and sons to college, they should be protected from stalking, date rape and sexual assault; that one-third of tribal women who have been the victims of rape or domestic abuse should have equal access to justice no matter who the perpetrator is; and, that domestic violence is still violence regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. It is critical that Representatives reject the exclusionary substitute bill and support passage of the bipartisan Senate bill. If you have any questions, please contact Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice-President, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, at 202-263-2880 zirkin@civilrights.org or Sakira Cook, Senior Policy Associate, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, at 202-263-2894 or cook@civilrights.org or Norma Gattsek, Director of Government Relations, Feminist Majority at ngattsekgfeministorg or 703- 522-2214. AFL-CIO, African American Ministers in Action (AAMA), Alaska Federation of Natives, American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA), American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), American Association of University Women (AAUW), American Federation of Government Employees, (AFL-CIO), American Federation of Teachers, (AFL-CIO), Asian Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence, Black Women's Health Imperative, Break the Cycle, Casa de Esperanza: National Latino Network for Healthy Families and Communities, Catholics for Choice, Center for Reproductive Rights, Coalition of Labor Union Women, Communications Workers of America, (AFL-CIO), Community Action Partnership, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF), Ecumenical Advocacy Days for Global Peace with Justice, Enterprising and Professional Women--USA. Equal Justice Society, Federation of American Women's Clubs Overseas (FAWCO), Feminist Majority, GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality, GlobalSolutions.org, Human Rights Campaign, Institute for Science and Human Values, Inc., International Community Corrections Association (ICCA), International Convocation of Unitarian Universalist Women, International Union, (UAW), Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights Under Law, Media Equity Collaborative, Methodist Federation for Social Action, Metropolitan Community Churches, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, National Association of Social Workers, National Black Justice Coalition, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. National Congress of American Indians, National Council of Jewish Women, National Council on Independent Living, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund, National Immigration Law Center, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, National Legal Aid and Defender Association, National Organization for Women, National Partnership for Women & Families, National Women's Law Center, People For the American Way, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, Service Women's Action Network (SWAN), South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT), The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The National Coalition of 100 Black Women, Inc., The National Conference of Puerto Rican Women, Inc. The Religious Institute, The United Methodist Church, (General Board of Church & Society), Ultra Violet, Unitarian Universalist Association, United Methodist Women, US Human Rights Network, US National Committee for UN Women, V-Day, WestCare Foundation, Wider Opportunities for Women, Women Enabled, Inc., Women's Action for New Directions (WAND), Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO), Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, (U.S. Section), Women's Law Project, YWCA USA.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, when the Republicans refer to President Obama's sequestration, they must think that no one in the country remembers the events of the last 2 years. Remember that 2 years ago, the Republicans blackmailed the entire country by saying that they would not permit the debt ceiling to be increased and they would force the country to default on its debts--and in fact destroy the economy-- unless we cut the budget by $2.4 trillion. We cut it by $1.2 trillion. But no one could figure out, no one could agree how to cut another $1.2 trillion, so both parties put in the sequester to kick the can down the road on this entirely artificial demand for an extra $1.2 trillion in cuts. That's why we're here now facing an economic catastrophe--because of the blackmail of an even worse catastrophe of failing to pay our bills, of calling into question the full faith and credit of the United States. That's what got us to this point. The only way to get us out is either to just repeal the entire sequester entirely--because we've made enough budget cuts--or to say, all right, we'll do half the budget, half the $1.2 trillion in cuts, and half by adopting loophole-closing measures that the Republicans themselves supported last year.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this bill. The purpose of this bill is laudable. Unfortunately, there are real constitutional problems. This bill would provide direct cash grants to rebuild houses of worship. Direct government funding of churches, synagogues, and mosques has always been held to be unconstitutional, and the decisions of the Supreme Court establishing that principle remain good law to this day. While some recent decisions have raised questions of these prior decisions' validity, they remain binding precedent. Most legal authorities would hold this bill to be constitutional, although some would disagree. At the very least, given the serious constitutional questions raised by this legislation, I am deeply troubled that it has received no committee consideration and is being rushed to the floor just a few days after being introduced under a procedure that allows only 40 minutes of debate and no amendments. One would think that we were naming a post office rather than passing legislation with significant constitutional implications that could alter the relationship between government and religion. While I have serious reservations about this bill and the way it is being considered, I wanted to commend the sponsors, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and my colleagues from New York, Ms. Meng and Mr. King, who have been outstanding champions of the people hard hit by Hurricane Sandy. So what is the concern? Let's start with the basics. This bill would direct Federal taxpayer dollars to the reconstruction of houses of worship. The idea that taxpayer money can be used to build a religious sanctuary or an altar has consistently been held unconstitutional. This is entirely different from government working with religious institutions to deliver social services. FEMA money, under the law this bill would amend, is already available to those institutions. FEMA Disaster Assistance Policy 9521.1 states: Just because a community center is operated by a religious institution does not automatically make it ineligible. In addition to worship services, many religious institutions conduct a variety of activities that benefit the community. Many of these activities are similar or identical to those performed by secular institutions and local governments. The law now permits funding to religious institutions that provide those services to the general public, on an equal basis with secular institutions doing the same work. Although the title of this bill suggests otherwise, there is no unequal treatment of religious institutions. So what we are really talking about is whether we should be in the business of using taxpayer money to build and rebuild houses of worship and rebuild sanctuaries and altars that are not available for use to the general public. I think, at the very least, we need to exercise caution. I know that people have been circulating letters making extravagant claims about the current state of the law, but what is clear is that the Supreme Court has never overruled its prior decisions specifically prohibiting this kind of use of public money. In Tilton v. Richardson, the Court held that a 20-year ban on using publicly financed college facilities for religious or other purposes was not sufficient. The Court made the ban permanent, saying: If, at the end of 20 years, the building is, for example, converted into a chapel or otherwise used to promote religious interests, the original Federal grant will in part have the effect of advancing religion. And that, of course, is not permissible. Similarly, in Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, the Court struck down a State program of ``maintenance and repair grants'' for the upkeep of religious elementary and secondary schools. The Court said: If the State may not erect buildings in which religious activities are to take place, it may not maintain such buildings or renovate them when they fall into disrepair. Some proponents have pointed to the Court's ruling in Mitchell v. Helms. The question in that case was whether publicly financed educational materials could be lent to religious schools. The controlling opinion, written by Justice O'Connor, made it clear that it was not sufficient that the publicly furnished materials be provided on a nondiscriminatory basis; they must never be diverted to religious activities. That is clearly not the case here. The majority has made a big issue of respecting the Constitution. We read the Constitution at the beginning of each Congress, and we are required to provide a statement of constitutional authority when we introduce a bill.

Mr. NADLER. But all of that means very little if, when faced with a genuinely significant constitutional question, the House gives it the bum's rush. This bill should be subject to hearings in the Judiciary Committee, with input from constitutional scholars, and due consideration of these significant constitutional issues, before we take such a radical step. At the very least, for those who support this bill, I would think that they would want to get it right, to ensure that it is not done in a way that would make it susceptible to successful legal challenge. I urge my colleagues to put the brakes on this legislation until we can review it with the care it deserves. Because I believe this bill to be unconstitutional, and because the constitutional issues have not been properly considered, I must reluctantly vote ``no.'' I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, the gimmick nature of this whole thing I won't elaborate on. It's been done before. The fact that this provision of withholding pay from Members of Congress is unconstitutional as it varies Members' pay is obvious. The argument that withholding pay for a year and a half or a year and three-quarters is not varying compensation. It is constitutionally laughable and beneath respect. Secondly, this is institutionalized bribery and extortion. It should never be considered. What this provision says is if you vote the way we think you ought to vote, you'll get paid. If you vote the way we think you should not vote, you will not get paid. That's why we have this provision in the Constitution. We should not be bribing Members. We should not say to a Member that if you think the budget before you is not good for the country, vote against it and you won't get paid; if you think it's not good for the country, you better vote for it because you have a mortgage payment coming due. How dare we. Finally, the last thing we want to do is say to people thinking of running for the Congress, if you're not a millionaire, don't run because there's no guarantee you'll be paid.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Hurricane Sandy supplemental appropriations bill, and the Frelinghuysen amendment to provide the funds necessary to start rebuilding and recovering from the storm. Hurricane Sandy hit the east coast almost 3 months ago. Never before has the House of Representatives taken so long to meet its obligations following a major disaster. I'm relieved that we're finally considering this bill today; but I'm disappointed, once again, that some are still playing politics by trying to add poison pills and offsets that jeopardize this aid package. As the current debate over the pending sequestration shows, finding offsets is no easy task, and it makes no sense to put that on the back of emergency aid. It defies the very nature of emergency aid, and it impedes the Federal Government from doing its most important job, protecting its citizens when calamity strikes. On the surface, Mr. Speaker, New York City appears to be back up and running; but many people are still homeless, and the lack of long-term housing is a problem for which we do not have an adequate answer. The restoration of heat and power remains a challenge. There are increasing reports of people, including small children, getting sick from exposure to toxic mold, sewage, or other hazardous substances. Entire neighborhoods are still dark and largely abandoned. Many small businesses in Lower Manhattan are still paying off disaster assistance loans secured after the attack on the World Trade Center 10 years ago. Many of these businesses were already operating on thin profit margins. Now they've been hit again; and without additional resources and a faster rebuilding process, many of these small businesses may close for good. The needs are great, and yet the House has still failed to act. Back in December, the Senate passed a $60.4 billion disaster aid package that tracked very closely to the administration's request, which was based on conservative assessments of the needs across the region. The House should have passed the Senate bill back then. There is simply no justifiable reason for the delay, unless you believe that when disaster strikes we are all on our own. Let us, once and for all, reject that notion and meet our obligations to get emergency aid in the hands of those who need it urgently. I urge my colleagues to end this madness and vote for the underlying bill, for the Frelinghuysen amendment, and against all restrictive amendments.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. Madam Speaker, obviously, I support this bill today to replenish the hurricane insurance fund, which would otherwise run dry for the entire country next week, but it does not excuse the callous action of the House leadership the other night for taking the $60 billion of relief off the table. Now we're told we'll get a vote on the 15th, and I hope they're as good as their word, although they haven't been in the past. Even so, it will take God knows how long for the Senate because the bill they had passed is now dead, this being a new Congress. That action the other night delayed relief for the long suffering people, for the businessowners whose businesses are going under, for the homeowners whose homes are suffering from mold. All of this was delayed by at least 3 weeks, maybe longer, on top of the fact that we had gone already 9 weeks--Katrina was 10 days--with a lack of aid, and now it will be another 3 or 4 or 5. This is the most callous action I've ever seen. The leadership of this House should be condemned for it. I hope they have the determination to make sure that this, indeed, comes to a vote on the 15th, that it passes and that the Senate is induced to match it quickly. That would be the least that decency would demand.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, sometimes events occur that are so out of the ordinary, so unusual as to defy belief. Such is the decision of the Speaker last night not to permit this House to vote on relief aid for the three States and some other areas that were devastated by Hurricane Sandy. I have been in this House for 20 years. There have been many disasters--floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, wildfires. In every single instance, this House has voted aid for the necessary States; in every single instance, usually within a week or 2. Never more than 3. It has now been 9 weeks since October 29 when Hurricane Sandy devastated three States and parts of more--9 weeks. The Senate passed a bill to aid us. The House was ready. The bill was prepared and an amendment was prepared. We were assured the bill would be on the floor last night or today. At the last minute the Speaker, without even talking to Republicans, not to mention Democrats from New York, refusing to meet with them, suddenly pulled the bill and said we wouldn't have a vote; as if the people in New York and Connecticut and Pennsylvania, New Jersey are not in need of aid; as if thousands of people are still not without heat, without water--as if thousands of small businesses don't need loans and aid so that they don't go under; as if thousands of people don't need help to rebuild their homes, to clear the trash from their properties; as if hundreds of municipalities don't need aid to finance this activity, having used up all their budgets for that purpose. We're told by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee we'll get a bill on the floor later this month in the next Congress. It's already 9 weeks. It's already an unprecedented length of time. And why? Are New Yorkers and Pennsylvanians and Connecticut residents and New Jersey residents less American than the people that we aid in the Midwest and the South when we vote for aid for those people because they are the victims of natural disasters? How can we treat an entire region of the country this way? It is the most disgraceful action I've seen in this House in the 20 years I've been here. I see that we're told that, well, FEMA still has money until March. But it's not just FEMA; it's the Small Business Administration that needs the appropriation now to help small businesses now; it's the Army Corps of Engineers that needs the authorization, the appropriation now to help the people who are victimized. There is no excuse for this, none. It is a betrayal of the people of those States. It is a betrayal of the people of the United States. It is a betrayal by the Speaker personally of the Members of this House not to permit a vote. I have never seen an action like it. I hope I never see it again. I urge the Speaker to reconsider and to rectify this decision today, because today is the deadline to avert going down in history as shameful.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Maryland said what had to be said, but I want to add that I've been in this House 20 years. We have seen droughts; we have seen storms; we have seen earthquakes; we have seen wildfires out west. This Congress has never, never failed to vote emergency appropriations for the aid of the beleaguered States. Never. Hurricane Sandy struck on October 29, 8, 9 weeks ago. It's unprecedented that it should take so long, and yet we are now told that this House is going to adjourn sine die even though the Senate voted the aid, and we're going to do nothing? It's unprecedented. It is disgusting. I can understand--I would not sympathize, but I could understand Members who might say the amount requested is too much, we should change it, we should quibble with it, we should debate it--fine. But to ignore it, to ignore the plight of millions of American citizens-- unprecedented, disgusting, unworthy of the leadership of this House. They should reconsider or they should hang their heads in shame, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report. While the report is an improvement over the House bill, it still falls short of where we need to be on the question of detention without trial. Nonetheless, I do want to commend the gentleman from Washington for his conscientious work on this and other aspects of the legislation. As a Nation, no matter what adversity we have faced we have done so as Americans. We have united behind the values and freedoms that gave birth to this Nation and that have made it a moral force in the world. In the last decade, however, 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, our 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. The conference report states that: Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force or the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012 shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws. This language simply continues the flawed policies established in the 2011 defense authorization bill. First, it applies only to ``any person inside the United States.'' That is important, but most of the debate on indefinite detention without charge and on the lack of due process has to do with people held by our government outside our borders-- including, potentially, U.S. citizens. The language in this bill, combined with the prohibitions against moving these detainees into the United States, guarantees that we will continue holding people indefinitely without charge--contrary to our traditions of due process and civil rights. Second, this text continues the claimed authority of the United States Government to hold even U.S. persons captured on United States soil indefinitely and without charge. Some people may take comfort in the provision that states that those of us entitled to certain rights prior to the passage of the AUMF and of last year's defense authorization bill continue to have the same rights afterwards. But this bill does not say who among us are fortunate enough to have those rights, nor does it tell us what those rights might be. It does not specify how the executive branch is to determine which of us are entitled to these constitutional protections and which of us are not. And it does not provide us with recourse if the President gets it wrong. Although I am urging a ``no'' vote on this conference report, I do want to acknowledge that, despite these very real problems, there are things in this bill that are important and that deserve Member support. For example, Senator Shaheen's amendment to allow servicemembers and their dependents to obtain abortions in military hospitals in cases of rape and incest rights a terrible wrong. But we must take great care. Our liberties are too precious to be cast aside in times of peril and fear. We have the tools to deal with those who would attack us. We do not need to surrender our liberty. 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--this bill should be rejected.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, addressing our debt is a critical long- term goal, but it's not our immediate problem. Right now, our immediate problem is high unemployment, and our economy needs efforts to spur job growth. The expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts, particularly those targeted toward the middle class, and the start of unparalleled across- the-board $1.2 trillion spending cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act sequestration provision, threatened further job growth. Looking just at sequestration, there is rare agreement. Not the President, not the Congress, not anyone ever wanted or expected the sequestration measures to take effect. Why? Because we have a jobs problem, and the spending cuts demanded by sequestration are a huge jobs killer. Republicans argue that this steep cut would risk defense-related jobs, and they're right. According to the Economic Policy Institute, these cuts would kill 1.3 million defense jobs in the first 3 years. But the Republicans completely ignore that the domestic spending cuts will also kill an estimated 1.3 million jobs in the same timeframe. Put another way, sequestration will kill 2.6 million American jobs in just 3 years. We simply must stop the sequestration-mandated spending cuts disaster, but this bill won't do that. This bill mandates draining tens of billions of dollars of Federal spending next year, reducing the already draconian domestic spending caps, and doing all of this without adding a single dollar of additional revenue. The outcome is virtually the same. This Republican bill will still kill a couple of million American jobs. Talk about driving off a cliff. Basic economics tells us that during good times, with low unemployment, government should reduce the national debt, but that to support job growth, government must not reduce spending during recessions. Now when we suffer from high unemployment, the proposed spending cuts, particularly those of the magnitude Republicans are proposing, would be disastrous. When we get to 5 percent unemployment, then we should start worrying about spending cuts. Right now, jobs are the issue. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 6365. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6365. While there is wide bipartisan agreement that getting control of our debt is a critical long-term goal, there is also agreement that unemployment is unacceptably high and that our economy remains in need of major efforts to spur job growth. As we grapple with these issues, there are two significant events approaching at the end of the year that many have argued could send our economy careening off the so-called fiscal cliff: (1) expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts, particularly those targeted toward the middle class, and (2) the start of unparalleled, across-the-board $1.2 trillion spending cuts mandated by last summer's Budget Control Act sequestration provision. On the tax question, we are where we've remained for years now--the President and Democrats agree that we can't afford to foot the bill for tax breaks for the wealthiest among us, while the Republicans continue to be beholden to the don't-tax-even-millionaires-and-billionaires plan. But on sequestration, there is rare agreement. The simple truth is that no one--not the president, not the Congress, not anyone--ever wanted or expected the sequestration to take affect. Why? Because we have a jobs problem, and the spending cuts demanded by mandatory sequestration are a huge jobs killer. In 2013 alone, sequestration would require that defense and discretionary domestic programs each incur an across-the-board $54.7 billion cut. Republicans have been spending a lot of time talking about the effects this steep cut would have on defense-related jobs. And they are right. According to the Economic Policy Institute, these cuts would result in the loss of 1.3 million defense jobs in just the first three years. But, Madam Speaker, that is not the end of the story. The Republicans completely ignore the almost identical job loss from the mandated domestic spending cuts--also about 1.3 million jobs lost in three years, according to EPI. Put another way, if we don't stop it, sequestration will be responsible for killing 2.6 million American jobs. So we simply must stop the sequestration mandated spending cuts. But this bill won't do that--at least, not really. H.R. 6365 still mandates (1) draining tens of billions of dollars of federal spending next year, (2) reducing the already draconian spending caps as outlined in the BCA, and (3) doing all this without adding one single dollar of additional revenue. So the outcome is the same--the Republicans would still kill a couple of million American jobs. Talk about driving off a cliff. But we won't hear about that from the Republicans, as they are too busy dancing as fast as they can to rewrite their role in setting up this self-made disaster in the first place. During last summer's debt ceiling debate--another game of chicken where Republicans held our economy hostage--Republicans demanded a dollar-for-dollar spending cut in order to raise the debt limit so our nation wouldn't, for the first time ever, default on our debts. Sure, there was the charade of reaching compromise through the so-called super committee. But it should come as no surprise to anyone in this Chamber that we are where we are today. Republicans wanted deep cuts that would kill millions of jobs, and we now stand on the brink of implementing them. Basic economics tells us that, if you want to support jobs and build the economy, government must not reduce spending during recessions. In good times, when unemployment is low, government should build surpluses to pay down the debt. In bad times, when unemployment is high, government should run deficits to make up for slowed private sector spending and to spur job growth. That is why what President Clinton did in the 90s--balancing the budget and beginning to pay down the national debt during a good economic time--was so good, and why what President Bush did--enacting huge tax cuts and running large deficits during a time of low unemployment, when he should have been paying down the national debt--was so devastating. Now, when we suffer from high unemployment, proposed spending cuts--particularly those of the magnitude Republicans are proposing--would be disastrous. When unemployment is down to five percent, then we can think about spending cuts. Now we must spur employment, and not enact these job-killing spending cuts. Madam Speaker, it is imperative that we stop the misguided and self- made disaster that sequestration, or equivalent spending cuts, will bring. But H.R. 6365 won't do it. I urge a no vote.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the FISA Amendments Act of 2012. If we had had an opportunity to evaluate this law based on experience with it, and to consider some amendments and alternatives, this opposition would not be necessary. But the Republican majority has, once again, told the Members of this House and the American people that it's ``my way or the highway.'' While it is certainly appropriate for our government to gather foreign intelligence, and while some degree of secrecy is obviously necessary, it is also vital in a free society that we limit government, protect the constitutional rights of Americans here and abroad, and limit warrantless spying to genuine foreign intelligence. Unfortunately, we have seen repeatedly how even the very minimal restraints Congress put on FISA have been violated. We should address those abuses. Congress has an obligation to exert more control over spy agencies than simply to give them a blank check for another 5 years. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) had an amendment that would have shortened the sunset by 2 years, but we won't even have a chance to consider it, perhaps because some of our Republican colleagues might also want to support such an amendment. As a result, we will not revisit the law until after the end of the next presidential term. And if we had cut shorter this extension, we could do what we should have done but haven't: hold hearings, look into how the law is operating, and decide what amendments and protections are necessary to make sure it operates right so that we can collect the intelligence without violating the constitutional rights of Americans. I had an amendment that would have required the Attorney General to make publicly available a summary of each decision of the FISA court and the FISA court of review that includes a significant construction of section 702, which allows warrantless surveillance, with appropriate security redactions and editing. Many American citizens and others who have nothing to do with foreign intelligence gathering are caught up in this surveillance, and government has an obligation to protect their rights. The FISA court is supposed to do that, and we need to ensure that the law and the courts are working. Disclosure of classified information is not needed to know whether the court performs meaningful oversight of the executive branch, applies minimization standards correctly, and whether or not we ought to amend the law. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) said, ``rather than playing the numbers game, either with the actual targets or the people who are incidentally surveilled, perhaps decisions of the FISA court, particularly the review of the FISA court, appropriately redacted, would be able to give us the answer to that question. I have always been one that favored disclosure.'' The gentleman from Wisconsin is right. If the FISA court is just a rubberstamp of the executive branch, we and the public should know that. And if the court really does provide meaningful oversight and meaningful limitations on the executive branch, we and the public should know that too. But we won't get to discover that or to debate that. Failure to do so is a dereliction of our constitutional duty to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens and the betrayal of our liberties. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and demand that we properly consider this very important issue by a somewhat shorter extension and by proper hearings and examination of the limitations and the workings of this law.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is obnoxious for three reasons: Number one, it picks on the District of Columbia because we can, because they are defenseless. We wouldn't do this to any State. Number two, it is a direct contradiction of Roe v. Wade, which says you cannot ban an abortion before viability. And one ignorant judge in Arizona, one far-right judge in Arizona who says that a ban is not a ban, it's only a limitation as long as there's an exemption for the risk of life to the mother, doesn't change the meaning of the English language nor the meaning of the Supreme Court. And three, it's obnoxious because it says to a woman whose health, whose future fertility, whose health is threatened, we judge that your health is less important than that pregnancy. It's not your decision; it's our decision because we're a bunch of arrogant politicians and you're only a woman who's pregnant, and to heck with you. That's why it's obnoxious.

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the D.C. Abortion Ban Act. This legislation is a flagrantly unconstitutional attack on the right of women to make the most fundamental decisions about their lives and their health. It is based on radical ideology rather than on long- established Supreme Court precedent or on sound science, and it is yet another attack on the right to self-government of the Americans who live, work, and pay taxes in our Nation's Capital. It is, in short, yet another example of the Republican war on women and of their fundamental hostility to democracy when the voters have the audacity to disagree with Republican orthodox. And why are we here today, playing abortion politics with a bill everyone knows will not pass the Senate, when millions of Americans are out of a job and the Republican majority can't find a moment to consider a single one of the President's jobs bills? The constitutional rule is clear: The government may not tell a woman whether or not she may have an abortion before fetal viability. This bill prohibits abortions much earlier. This bill does not even have an exception to protect women's health, another constitutional violation. We don't have to guess how this kind of extreme legislation plays out. We know from States which have enacted similar laws. Take the case of Danielle Deaver, a Nebraska woman who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water broke. Doctors informed her that her fetus would likely be born with undeveloped lungs and not be able to survive outside the womb because all the amniotic fluid had drained, the tiny growing fetus slowly would be crushed by the uterus walls. During her pregnancy, Nebraska enacted a law similar to this bill. As a result, Ms. Deaver could not obtain an abortion. Thus, despite serious complications and enduring infections, Danielle had to continue her pregnancy. On December 8, 2010, Danielle delivered a 1 pound, 10 ounce child who survived only 15 minutes outside the womb. The question of fetal pain is a difficult one, but Members need to understand that the argument being made by the proponents of this bill, that a 20-week fetus can feel pain, is a fringe one denied by the bulk of the scientific community. Scientists will continue to debate and study, but we should not write marginal views into the criminal code. We also need to remember that this bill targets only the District of Columbia, which some on the other side of the aisle like to treat like a colony. It is outrageous that we would be considering a bill that Members are clearly not willing to apply to their own constituents. Mr. Speaker, it is time that the Republican leadership stop diverting the attention of this House from the business of putting people back to work by bringing up one divisive, unconstitutional bill after another. I urge my colleagues to reject this cynical, dangerous, misogynist, and unconstitutional legislation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, first of all, we're dealing with nuclear regulatory authority, with nuclear power plants, and we're not dealing with small businesses. We are dealing with very large businesses. Secondly, we're dealing with permits for construction or modification of a nuclear power plant. Because of the disaster at Fukushima, hopefully, we learned from experience, it may very well be that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will want to put out new regulations or modify old ones in light of what we have learned from what the Japanese didn't do right, and this would say that they could not promulgate any such regulation as long as unemployment is above 6 percent. As long as unemployment is above 6 percent, we must continue to risk all of our lives. That makes no sense. Second of all, yes, we want to do environmental streamlining. Well, what this bill says--and this would apply to this, too--is that if an environmental impact statement takes longer than a certain number of days, forget about it. But it's the sponsor, not the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, the sponsor that controls the timing of the EIS. So if you've got a terrible project which you know is an environmental disaster, all you have to do, under this bill, is to slow-walk the EIS because you control it, and then you don't have to worry about any environmental consequences. That's backwards, it's upside down, and it risks the public safety. I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment, which would exempt rules to protect nuclear power plant safety from titles I, III, and V of the bill. It is rare that the premise of an entire week of legislative work on the House floor is wrong, but, here we are here. We are told this is ``regulatory week,'' during which House Republicans are supposedly working to see that the yoke of oppressive government regulation is thrown off and the American entrepreneur is freed to grow his or her business and increase jobs. In thinking about this view, I am reminded of a famous line in Shakespeare's MacBeth, ``It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.'' We have heard, and will continue to hear, a lot of sound and fury this week on the House floor, but just like all the other regulatory bills the House has passed this year, what we pass this week will die in the Senate as well. So all of that talk will signify nothing. Like health care repeal, on which we have taken 33 votes, this, too, is a tremendous waste of time. More importantly, there is no evidence to support the position that overregulation is the major cause of our slow economic growth and high unemployment rate. According to the Economic Policy Institute, ``economy-wide studies do not find a significant decline in employment from regulatory policies.'' The real culprit of our slow growth and high unemployment is reduced aggregate demand. Do not just take my word for it--this is what economists and business are saying. The Wall Street Journal surveyed dozens of economists last July, and it found that the ``main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand.'' The National Federation of Independent Business found that when business owners with declining sales were asked the cause, 45 percent said declining sales. Only 10 percent said higher taxes and regulations. If all of this is true, why are we here making it harder for the government to enact protective rules and regulations to protect the public health and safety? Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy analyst in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, suggests an answer. He has said: Regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment. Let us look at what the bill that this canard has brought us would do. To me, it seems like Frankenstein. It's put together from various different pieces that do not fit together, and it is very frightening. For example, the underlying bill would block all and any major efforts to protect public health, safety, the environment and so on until the unemployment rate falls below the arbitrary figure of 6 percent; and the bill would impose needless costs on the government and make protecting health and welfare that much more difficult by putting impediments to agreeing to consent decrees and settlements. What all this means is that the most potentially dangerous industries, like nuclear power, the safety of the American public would be put at serious risk by this bill. My amendment would attempt to make this Frankenstein bill slightly less of a horror show by exempting the issue of nuclear power plant safety from three sections of the bill. The dangers of nuclear power are well known. One accident can doom millions of people. Because of the almost unimaginable disaster that could happen at a nuclear power plant, regulations to prevent accidents or meltdowns in advance are critically important. The underlying bill would make it harder for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to adopt such rules or policies, thereby putting millions of lives at risk. Hampering the ability of the NRC to require safety measures like those necessary to prevent a meltdown in the event of an earthquake or an act of terrorism could be devastating. My amendment would free the NRC from the burdens of this bill and allow it to promulgate those rules and regulations necessary to protect us from the disaster of a nuclear catastrophe such as those that occurred at Chernobyl in Russia or at Fukushima in Japan. I urge everyone to approve the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, we oppose the bill to start with because we shouldn't have a moratorium on rules that are intended to protect the public health and safety that may be necessary. But second of all, this amendment is self-defeating because if a small business sues the agency, two things. Number one, let's assume that the agency thinks that the small business' suit has some merit, not enough to win the case, but some merit. Under this amendment, the agency cannot compromise, cannot say, You're right; we'll make this change, because the moment it makes a change, even a minor change, then it is no longer the prevailing party. The small business, under the definition of the bill, is the prevailing party and will get attorney's fees, and the attorney's fees come out of the budget--maybe the small budget--of the agency. So rather than yielding in any way, rather than compromising with the small business, fight them. Fight them tooth and nail. That's what this amendment says to the agency. It is, on its own terms, silly and self-defeating, and I urge its defeat. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. NADLER. I strongly oppose the Posey amendment because it makes even worse an already deeply problematic provision. Under title I of this bill, a court is required to award attorney's fees and costs to a ``substantially prevailing small business'' in any civil action to challenge an agency's compliance with the moratorium. That provision further states that a small business can be substantially prevailing in the meaning of the bill even in the absence of a final judgment in its favor ``if the agency that took the significant regulatory action changes its position after the civil action is filed.'' There are two problems with this. First, it doesn't matter if the agency's change in position had absolutely nothing to do with the civil action. A court would still have to award attorney's fees to a small business that challenges an agency's compliance with the moratorium in court, even if the change in policy had nothing to do with the lawsuit. Bad as this provision already is, the Posey amendment makes it worse by requiring that any award of attorney's fees and costs be taken out of the defendant agency's budget. Agencies are already straining under diminishing financial and staff resources, thanks in no small part to the budget priorities of this House during this Congress. Further debilitating agencies by taking fee awards out of their budgets--even under circumstances when their change in position had nothing to do with the underlying lawsuit--further damages agencies' ability to do what Congress tasked them with doing, namely, protecting public health and safety. What this amendment says is, if an agency has a regulation which, in its judgment, it must issue to protect the public health and safety and a small business sues to stop that, and even if the small business doesn't prevail, if there is any change in the agency's position, and even if that change in position has nothing to do with the subject of the lawsuit by the small business, it must pay attorney's fees. And, under this amendment, it must pay attorney's fees out of its own budget. That is dangerous because it will debilitate the agencies that we task with protecting the public health and safety. Second of all, it is self-defeating. If you are the agency and you know if you are going to change your position in any way you're going to have the pay the attorney's fees out of your own budget, better don't change. Fight the lawsuit. Don't give in. Fight the small business because you may win; while, if you change your position in any way, if you compromise, if you say, you know, they don't have that great of a case but we can accommodate them by making a small change-- no, then you have to pay attorney's fees out of our own budget. So don't accommodate them. Don't comprise with them. Don't make the change. Fight them to the bitter end. That doesn't help the small business, and it certainly doesn't help the American people who need these agencies to police the marketplace and to protect the public health and safety. So it defeats its own purpose. It is just wrong on so many levels. I reserve the balance of my time.