Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I again want to stress that this amendment commends all those who worked so hard to bring justice to bin Laden and recognizes that our number one intelligence priority is the defeat of al Qaeda. It should get bipartisan support. A very similar resolution passed the Senate 97-0. I ask for support. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. I now yield to another cosponsor of the amendment, the gentlelady from Texas.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

Mr. NADLER. I am opposed in its current form.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Grimm-Reed amendment to commend our intelligence community for their role in eliminating Osama bin Laden. Mr. Chairman, the killing of Osama bin Laden is the most significant victory over our most significant enemy. It deserves recognition in the Halls of Congress. That is why I was disappointed that the House Republican leadership chose not to bring up something similar to Senate Resolution 159. That resolution recognizes the hard work by all facets of our government, from the President to the military to the intelligence community. It honors the victims of 9/11 and their families, and it is bipartisan, having passed the Senate 97-0. I felt this type of resolution would be an appropriate vehicle with which to commend those responsible for the death of bin Laden, so I filed it as an amendment with the Rules Committee. But it was held not to be germane. I also filed the more narrow, more germane version with the Rules Committee, a version that commended only the members of the intelligence community who played a role in the operation. The amendment before us from Representatives Grimm and Reed is identical word for word to the version I originally filed with the Rules Committee, and I am gratified that they saw the merit in the wording that we drafted. While it does not adequately honor all those responsible for our great victory over al Qaeda, the President and the military in addition to the intelligence community, it does allow the House to express its appreciation and commendation to the intelligence community, and therefore I support it. The recent death of Osama bin Laden is a measure of justice that was long overdue. Hopefully, it will bring some comfort to the victims of 9/11 and their families, many of whom live in my district where the World Trade Center was, of course, located. I ask all Members to support the amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden murdered almost 3,000 Americans in cold blood. As the House Member representing Ground Zero, many of these innocent men, women, and children were my constituents and my friends. Words cannot do justice to the toll taken by this mass murderer. Of course, the attack on September 11 was part of a war Osama bin Laden and his terrorist organization al Qaeda had declared long ago and waged against the United States for years. After September 11, we vowed as a nation to wage war against al Qaeda and in particular to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. When President Obama made his dramatic announcement almost 2 weeks ago that American troops had killed bin Laden, we knew that our country had finally fulfilled that part of the promise. While I supported and we passed an amendment today to commend our intelligence community for their role in eliminating bin Laden, I stand by my earlier statement that it was inadequate. This motion to recommit, which I am offering with Ms. Jackson Lee and Mr. Ellison, properly honors all those responsible. It appropriately commends everyone involved in the long road we took to bring bin Laden to justice--President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton, our Navy SEALs, and our intelligence community. The death of Osama bin Laden was a triumphant victory, but our work is not done. This final amendment reminds us that we cannot rest on our laurels. The threat of al Qaeda remains real and continuing. That is why in this final amendment we make clear to our intelligence community that the highest priority for funding in this bill is the disruption, dismantlement, and defeat of al Qaeda. We must focus on the materials captured from bin Laden's compound so we can stop them from striking again. I urge my colleagues to join us to ensure that we continue to do all we can to avoid another 9/11. In closing, I want to state my hope that we have a bipartisan show of support for this final amendment. Commending those who worked so hard to bring justice to bin Laden and recognizing our number one intelligence priority is the defeat of al Qaeda should be expressions that can be supported across the political spectrum. I yield to a cosponsor of the amendment, the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, this bill has nothing to do with creating jobs, reducing our deficit or bolstering our economy. It addresses, instead, the completely fictitious claim that legislation is needed to prevent the Federal funding of abortion services. This bill has been falsely advertised as a mere codification of existing law prohibiting the Federal funding of abortion. I have always opposed the unfair restrictions on Federal funding for a perfectly legal health care procedure, but this bill goes far beyond prohibiting Federal funding. The real purpose and effect of this bill is to eliminate private health care choices for women by imposing significant tax penalties on families and small businesses when they use their own money to pay for health insurance or medical care. This tax penalty is intended to drive insurance companies into dropping abortion services from existing private health care policies that women and families now have and rely upon. This bill claims that a tax credit or deduction is a form of government funding. It follows that tax-deductible charitable contributions to a church, synagogue or other religious institution are also government funding--a position my Republican colleagues have never taken and that, if taken, would prohibit tax deductions for charitable contributions to religious organizations because they would then be violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. You can't have it both ways. Either tax exemptions, deductions or credits for private spending are government funding or they are not. If they are not, this bill makes no sense. If they are, then tax- deductible private contributions to religious institutions are government funding prohibited by the Constitution. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and here, the taxing power is being used to destroy the right of every American to make private health care decisions free from government interference. This bill is an unprecedented attack on the use of private funds to make private health care choices, and is part of the new House majority's broader and disturbing attack on women's access to health care. After 2 years of hearing my Republican colleagues complain that government should not meddle in the private insurance market or in private health care choices, I am astounded by this legislation, which is so obviously designed to do just that. It seems that many Republicans believe in freedom provided that no one uses that freedom in a way that Republicans find objectionable. It is a strange understanding of freedom. There is also a provision in this bill that might allow any health care provider or institution to refuse to provide an abortion to a woman whose life depends on having that abortion. They could let that woman die right there in the emergency room, and the government would be powerless to do anything. In fact, if the government insisted that the hospital not let the woman die, the bill would allow the hospital to sue the government and, in the case of a State or locality, strip that community of all Federal funding until the jurisdiction relented. Despite the fact that Republicans made a big show of taking out language limiting rape to forcible rape, the committee report now says that the bill still excludes victims of statutory rape in order to close a ``loophole.'' That is right. You women who have been sexually victimized are really just a loophole. Frankly, disgusting. A vote for this bill, Madam Speaker, is a vote for a tax increase on women, families, and small businesses. It is a vote for taking away the existing health insurance that women and families now have and pay for with their own funds. It is a vote to elevate the right to refuse care over the obligation to provide lifesaving care. It deserves to be defeated.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an organization in my Congressional District that has served this nation for more than a century, protecting pets from abuse and helping to make America a more humane country. Founded on the belief that animals are entitled to kind and respectful treatment and must be protected under the law, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) is celebrating its landmark 145th anniversary on April 10, 2011. Inspired to take action after witnessing the beating of a work horse on a New York City street, Henry Bergh founded the ASPCA in 1866. He believed that protecting animals was an issue that crossed party lines and class boundaries. He used his gifts of oration to make a commanding moral and legal case to protect animals, persuading some of Manhattan's most prominent leaders at the time, including members of the Rockefeller family and the Mayor of New York City to support him in this important fight. From the beginning, the ASPCA fought hard to provide care and protection for the city's working horses and transform dog pounds into professionally run adoptions facilities. And they opened an animal hospital which serves New York City to this very day. The modern ASPCA also includes a Humane Law Enforcement department, which upholds state animal cruelty laws in the five boroughs. Last year alone, the ASPCA investigated some 4,000 reported complaints of animal cruelty, made 51 arrests, and helped more than 400 animals. With a 90 percent conviction rate for their animal cruelty investigations, the ASPCA is helping to make New York a safer place for both the city's residents and animals. I am proud to say the ASPCA's Bergh Memorial Animal Hospital is one of the largest full-service animal hospitals in New York, with more than 24,000 patient visits in 2009, including almost 5,000 emergency exams. The hospital's Intensive Care Unit operates 365 days a year. This was particularly lucky for Gary, a one year old cat that fell from an apartment building window in April of 2010 and was brought to the ASPCA's hospital in critical condition, with a life-threatening fractured pelvis. The hospital's veterinarians worked tirelessly, against all odds, to save Gary. He is alive today thanks to their skills. My colleagues will find it interesting that Bergh Memorial Animal Hospital was an early leader in radiation therapy for cancer in animals and, during World War I, ASPCA veterinarians helped care for the horses used by the U.S. Army. Mr. Speaker, the ASPCA has helped to change the way Americans view animals and the tools that are needed to care for them. It led the way with a wide variety of innovations from horse ambulances to the cardboard boxes that people use to carry home the pets they adopt-- boxes that were devised by an ASPCA shelter clerk. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, nearly 4,000 cats and dogs are saved each year when they are adopted from the ASPCA Adoption Center. The state- of-the-art adoption center was recently renovated and now houses more than 300 cats and dogs in accommodations designed to create an inviting, appealing space for both pets and people. The ASPCA also manages the Animal Poison Control Center, which- handled more than 167,000 cases of pets exposed to toxic substances last year--treating cases that ranged from cats and dogs to horses and livestock. Its location in Urbana, Illinois provides the ASPCA with a strong presence in the Midwest to complement the New York City Headquarters. In closing, the ASPCA's founding mission ``to provide effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals'' continues to. resonate today some 145 years later, and I am proud to rise today to pay tribute to this organization in my district. I hope you will all join me in wishing them many good years to come.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I was on medical leave and missed votes on March 16-17, 2011. Had I been able to, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 181; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 182; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 183; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 184; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 185; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 186; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 188, final passage of the NSP Termination Act; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 189; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 190; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 191; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 192 prohibiting funding for National Public Radio; and ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 193 directing the President to remove the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, this bill drastically cuts funding for FAA programs, threatening the development of the NextGen air traffic control system and requiring the furlough of hundreds of safety-related employees. The bill also would change the National Mediation Board's election rules. Airline and railroad workers would no longer vote for union representation by a majority of those voting but by a majority of all those eligible to vote. It would be extremely undemocratic to thus count votes not cast as ``no'' votes. No election in any free country does so. And I urge my colleagues to support the LaTourette-Costello amendment to strike this provision. I also oppose provisions in the manager's amendment providing liability immunity for the airlines and limitations on discovery. Section 336 would block access to safety-related data through discovery and would block use of such information in court. It is virtually unheard of for Congress to simply declare that broad categories of information cannot be obtained by a party to a lawsuit or even used as evidence in a legal proceeding. Section 337 provides immunity to airlines and their agents for any type of damage resulting from an event contemplated by a safety management system. These systems are designed to analyze virtually every kind of risk, so granting this immunity would make it virtually impossible to hold an airline or individual accountable for negligence causing almost any accident. This liability shield would deprive injured victims of their rights and would also preempt State tort law. We haven't held any hearings on this in the Transportation Committee or in the Judiciary Committee, which, frankly, has jurisdiction and the proper expertise with which to analyze such grants of immunity, and we haven't heard any evidence to justify these dangerous restrictions. I find it hard to believe that anybody thinks that airlines should be allowed to act with negligence and be free from liability should you or I or any other American be injured or maimed or killed as a result of the negligence. For all these reasons, I must oppose the bill. However, I do want to thank Chairman Mica and Congressman Coble for including language in the manager's amendment to strengthen the provisions guaranteeing the right to carry or check musical instruments onto an airline. This is an issue I've worked on for many years, and I am very pleased to see it finally moving forward. I hope that we can continue to find areas of agreement, since passage of a long-term FAA authorization bill is long overdue. I look forward to working with my colleagues in that spirit. But until the funding levels are increased, the safety and worker provisions are in place, the poison pill provisions about union votes are removed, I cannot support this bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Kucinich resolution directing the President to remove United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan. It is time to bring U.S. involvement in the war in Afghanistan to an end and to bring our troops home. The war effort in Afghanistan is no longer serving its purpose of enhancing the security of the United States, which should be our goal. We were attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had bases in Afghanistan. It made sense to go in and destroy those bases. And we did. We have every right, we have every duty to destroy bases which are being used to plot against the United States. But the CIA tells us that there are now fewer than 100 al Qaeda personnel in all of the country of Afghanistan. It is past time to admit that our legitimate purpose in Afghanistan-- to destroy al Qaeda bases--has long since been accomplished. But it is a fool's errand to try to remake a country that nobody since Genghis Khan has managed to conquer. What makes us think, what arrogance gives us the right to assume that we can succeed where the Mongols, the British, the Soviets failed? No government in Afghanistan, no government in Kabul, has ever been able to make its writ run in the entire country. Why have we undertaken to invent a government that is not supported by the majority of the people, a government that is corrupt, and try to impose it on this country? Afghanistan is in the middle of what is at this point a 35-year civil war. We have no business intervening in that civil war, we have no ability to win it for one side or the other, and we have no necessity to win it for one side or the other. This whole idea of counterinsurgency, that we are going to persuade the people who are left alive after our firepower is applied to love the government that we like is absurd. It will take tens of years, hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of American lives, if it can be done at all, and we don't need to do it. It's their country. If they want to have a civil war, we can't stop them. We can't choose the rulers that they have, we don't have to like the rulers that they have, and we don't have to like their choices. It's not up to us. At this point we must recognize that rebuilding Afghanistan is both beyond our ability and beyond our mandate to prevent terrorists from attacking the United States. And if it be said that there are terrorists operating in Afghanistan, that may be, but it is also true of Yemen, Somalia and many other countries. We do not need to invade and conquer and occupy all those countries, and Afghanistan provides no greater necessity or justification for military operations. We are throwing $100 billion a year--plus countless lives--down a drainpipe, for no useful purpose at all--and with very little discussion of our purposes and of whether our policy matches our purposes. To continue so bad a policy at so high a cost is simply unconscionable. It is unjustifiable to sacrifice more money and more lives this way. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to bring the U.S. involvement in the war in Afghanistan to a close. Now, I want to say a word about supporting the troops. I believe it is more supportive of the troops to bring them home from a war that they should not be fighting than it is to give them weapons to fight an unnecessary war in which some of them, unfortunately, will lose their lives. So I say support our troops. Bring them home. Support the country. Stop fighting where it no longer makes sense. Vote for this resolution. Let's bring our troops home.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I hadn't planned to speak except I must rebut the nonsense we just heard from the previous speaker. Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States has a duty to faithfully execute the laws. He is doing so. Though he doesn't agree with the Defense of Marriage Act and though he doesn't think it's constitutional, unlike President Bush, who refused to implement and to enforce the laws he thought were unconstitutional, President Obama is enforcing the law. He is simply not urging it in court. That's his prerogative, and that's his duty if he doesn't think it's constitutional. The fact of the matter is, given Supreme Court precedent on the standards to use in defending a law that discriminates against people, he had no choice because, when you have a group that is discriminated against and that inherently in its characteristics is not politically powerful enough to protect itself, the precedents all say you must have heightened scrutiny. That is what the President is urging in court. He is enforcing the law, and he is doing exactly what he ought to do.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I will yield the 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I now yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment sponsored by Mr. Conyers, Mr. Paul, myself and Mr. Jones. The amendment would prohibit the use of any funds made available in this act to make an application for what's commonly known as a section 215 order requiring the production of library circulation records, library patron lists, book sale records or book customer lists. The amendment is very narrowly drawn to protect the privacy of all Americans from unwarranted governmental investigation in an area directly related to their beliefs and private thoughts. What we read, where we read, what we listen to, our interests, the type of information we seek, our private tastes in art and music all tell a great deal about us. The right to be free from the prying eyes of government in these areas is absolutely necessary to protect our rights of free speech, religious liberty, liberty of conscience, freedom of association and political freedom. This amendment will not prevent the government from obtaining this type of information provided it obtains the constitutionally required warrant. What it will stop is the use of 215 orders which are issued by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under standards so loose it is almost impossible for the government to get turned down, instead of the normal warrant. In fact, the secret court has become a virtual rubber stamp for the government. The amendment also will not stop the use of section 215 orders in other investigations such as surveillance of computer communications, even if conducted in libraries. Section 215 authorizes the government to obtain ``any tangible thing'' so long as the government provides a ``statement of facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things are relevant to a foreign intelligence or an international terrorism or espionage investigation.'' This would include business records, library records, tax records, educational records, or medical records. Before the enactment of section 215, only specific types of records were subject to the orders issued by the secret court, and the government had to show ``specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the record pertains is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.'' In other words, specific reason to believe that the person you were talking about is either a foreign agent or a terrorist. This dragnet approach of section 215, which does not need those specific facts, allows the government to review personal records even if there is no reason to believe that the individual involved has anything to do with terrorism. This poses a threat to individual rights in the most sensitive area of our lives with little restraint on the Congress. While Congress has decided to extend the life of section 215 that does all these things for the next few months, during which I hope we can take a closer look at it and, if not reform it, then do away with it, I think it entirely inappropriate for us to provide some reasonable protection for these very limited and sensitive areas and in effect cutting out library records from the section 215 extension that we just voted. Do not believe the scare tactics that this amendment might impede investigations and might make us vulnerable to terrorism. The government has many tools with which to investigate terrorism and other types of wrongdoing. In fact, section 215 is rarely used. Search warrants and other investigative tools would still be available to the government. But in any event, most of section 215 is unaffected by this amendment and will continue. This amendment pertains only to library records. When we last considered this amendment a number of years ago, it passed this House overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. Today, Representative Conyers and I offer it with two Republican colleagues, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones). I urge my colleagues to support this amendment dealing only with the library records aspect of section the 215. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise as designee of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and I am pleased to offer the amendment at the desk.

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

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for his remarks and for yielding. I just want to make one comment on what was said a moment ago by the gentleman from Florida. This amendment reduces funding in this CR to $10 billion. It should be enough to withdraw the troops. But the argument was made that to reduce the funding is not to support our troops, to rob them of the implements of doing their job. But the fact is that the only power that Congress has to effectuate the war-making power, to control whether we should be at war somewhere or another, is the power of the purse. We are not saying, by adopting this amendment, we would not be saying that we want our troops there with no weapons and so forth. We would be saying use the funds to bring the troops home. It is more supportive of the troops to bring them home from a war that they should not be fighting, that is not vital to our national security, it is more supportive to bring them home than it is to give them weapons to fight an unnecessary war in which some of them, unfortunately, will lose their lives. So I say support our troops. Bring them home. Support the country. Stop fighting where it doesn't make sense, and spend our military resources where it helps the national security of the United States, which is not in Afghanistan right now.

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

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. The remarks of the gentleman from Florida were incorrect. This amendment limits $10 billion from this CR, enough to bring the troops home during the pendency of this CR. Funds that were already spent were appropriated from the previous CRs. So it hasn't already been spent.

Mr. NADLER. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to offer this amendment along with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentlewoman from California (Mr. Stark). The continuing resolution provides approximately $100 billion for Department of Defense operations in Afghanistan. This amendment states that not more than $10 billion of the funds made available by the bill may be used for military operations in Afghanistan. The intent is clear: It is time to bring U.S. involvement in the war in Afghanistan to an end and to bring our troops home. The war effort in Afghanistan is no longer serving its purpose of enhancing the security of the United States, which should be our goal. We were attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had bases in Afghanistan. It made sense to go in and destroy those bases. And we did. We have every right, we have every duty to destroy bases which are being used to plot against the United States. But the CIA tells us that there are now fewer than 100 al Qaeda personnel in all of the country of Afghanistan. Congress and the American people helped greatly reduce U.S. involvement in Iraq. Through the elections in 2006 and 2008 we forced a new direction in Iraq and helped bring thousands of troops home. We must now do the same in Afghanistan. The intent of this amendment is to reduce the funding for Afghanistan sufficiently to leave enough funds to provide for the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops but not funding for ongoing combat operations. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) earlier today said he would propose an amendment to establish a blue ribbon commission to examine our war effort and to ask the question of how best to fight the war. With all due respect, that is the wrong question. The right question, the first question is: Why do we need to fight this war at all? It is past time to admit that our legitimate purpose in Afghanistan-- to destroy al Qaeda bases--has long since been accomplished. But it is a fool's errand to try to remake a country that nobody since Genghis Khan has managed to conquer. What makes us think, what arrogance gives us the right to assume that we can succeed where the Mongols, the British, the Soviets failed? No government in Afghanistan, no government in Kabul, has ever been able to make its writ run in the entire country. Why have we undertaken to invent a government that is not supported by the majority of the people, a government that is corrupt, and try to impose it on this country? Afghanistan is in the middle of what is at this point a 35-year civil war. We have no business intervening in that civil war, we have no ability to win it for one side or the other, and we have no necessity to win it for one side or the other. This whole idea of counterinsurgency, that we are going to persuade the people who are left alive after our firepower is applied to love the government that we like is absurd. It will take tens of years, hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of American lives, if it can be done at all, and we don't need to do it. It's their country. If they want to have a civil war, we can't stop them. We can't choose the rulers that they have, we don't have to like the rulers that they have, and we don't have to like their choices. It's not up to us. At this point we must recognize that rebuilding Afghanistan is both beyond our ability and beyond our mandate to prevent terrorists from attacking the United States. And if it be said that there are terrorists operating in Afghanistan, that may be, but it is also true of Yemen, Somalia and many other countries. We do not need to invade and conquer and occupy all those countries, and Afghanistan provides no greater necessity or justification for military operations. We are debating on this floor hundreds of budget cuts--cuts that will grievously hurt millions of Americans--in order to reduce our expenditures by about $60 billion. Yet we are throwing $100 billion a year--plus countless lives--down a drainpipe, for no useful purpose at all--and with very little discussion of our purposes and of whether our policy matches our purposes. To continue so bad a policy at so high a cost is simply unconscionable. It is unjustifiable to sacrifice more money and more lives this way. I urge my colleagues to join me and Ms. Lee and Mr. Stark in voting to bring the U.S. involvement in the war in Afghanistan to a close. Vote for this amendment. Let's bring our troops home. Let's stop wasting our lives and our money and our treasure and our forces. Let's bring our troops home. Let's devote our resources to something that helps the people of this country.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, I am not going to repeat all of what has been said about the Republican war on women, about the fact that the Republican majority was elected pledging jobs and all we see is a war on various social services and women and nothing about jobs, but I am going to say this: I have been listening very carefully to the supporters of this amendment, to Mr. Pence and others, and what do I hear? I hear that we must punish Planned Parenthood by defunding them because they have committed a number of sins. Sin Number 1, they perform abortions. They are a very large abortion provider, and even though none of those abortions are paid for with Federal funds, that is prohibited under the Hyde amendment however you read it, we don't like Planned Parenthood because they are a large abortion provider. Number two, we don't like Planned Parenthood because they have committed allegedly various terrible things. Some provocateurs went into their offices and said that they were representing sex workers and they were offered services, and any organization that is willing to do this should not get Federal funds. We are going to punish Planned Parenthood, number one, because they are a large abortion provider and we don't like abortion providers; and, number two, because they do other things, which if in fact they do, which I don't think they do, but if in fact they do, they are bad things. There is a major problem with this. There is a major problem with this rhetoric and with this reasoning. And, by the way, the CR to which this is an amendment eliminates title X family planning funding anyway, so it will eliminate most of the funds that go to Planned Parenthood. But whatever funds that are available, they can go to other people to provide those services, not Planned Parenthood, because we don't like Planned Parenthood for various reasons. A bill that punishes someone, some person or organization who is named or is identifiable, by legislative action is called a bill of attainder. That is the definition of a bill of attainder: A legislative punishment, penalty, a legislative penalty, a legislative-enacted penalty--in this case, no funding--directed at some identifiable person or organization to punish them for something. Article I, Section 9 says, ``No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed''; a fundamental foundation of constitutional law. If Planned Parenthood or anybody else is doing terrible things and ought to be punished, that is up to the courts. If, indeed, Planned Parenthood is trafficking with sex traffickers, let them be prosecuted. If, indeed, Planned Parenthood is doing anything illegal, let them be prosecuted. Let the organization be prosecuted. Let the individual employees who are doing these things be prosecuted at law. That is our system. But you don't punish an organization because they are doing something of which you don't approve. Now, if you want to say we don't think that there ought to be any contraceptive services in the United States and therefore we are going to have no title X funding, the CR does say that. I don't agree with it, but it is constitutional. But to say that if we have title X funding, if we have maternal services funding, none of it can go to Planned Parenthood, it can go to somebody else, but not Planned Parenthood, that is a legislatively enacted punishment because Planned Parenthood is or is allegedly doing things of which you don't approve. Now, I heard a lot at the beginning of this Congress about we have to make sure that we adhere to the Constitution. This is a bill of attainder, because it is a legislatively enacted punishment of a named organization because that organization is doing things or is allegedly doing things of which we don't approve. So I submit that in addition to all the other reasons why this shouldn't be done that have been enacted here, this is flatly unconstitutional, and I challenge anyone to say how this is not a bill of attainder. Again, the black letter definition of a bill of attainder is a legislatively enacted penalty aimed at some person or organization that is identifiable, named right here, for some reason, that they have done various things, provided abortions, done illegal things or otherwise. So in addition to all the other problems, this amendment is unconstitutional and will be struck down by the courts if it should pass. I yield back the balance of my time.

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