Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 5330 extends by 10 years the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Extension Act of 2004, an important tool in combating illegal cartel behavior. Set to expire next month, the 2004 act promotes the detection and prosecution of illegal cartel behavior by giving participants in a price-fixing cartel powerful incentives to report the cartel to the Justice Department's Antitrust Division and to cooperate in the investigation and prosecution. Criminal cartel enforcement targets some of the worst crimes perpetrated on American consumers, but these crimes are not easily detected because the actual criminal activity takes place in secret meetings, behind closed doors among willing coconspirators. So even with the hard work of the Antitrust Division, price-fixing cartels can often go undetected. With hundreds of millions, or even billions, of dollars of unlawful profits at stake, these criminals work hard to keep their actions secret. In August 1993, the Antitrust Division revised its existing program to destabilize cartels by giving cartel participants a strong incentive to break the code of silence and report the cartel. This program offers amnesty from criminal prosecution for the first company to report the cartel. The company cannot have been the ringleader, and it has to continue cooperating fully with the criminal investigation and prosecution. The company's executives also receive amnesty if they give full cooperation. But there was still a disincentive for cartel participants to come forward because they remained subject to treble damages and joint and several liability in accompanying civil litigation. Six years ago, this Congress gave the Antitrust Division a new weapon to attack this disincentive head on. ACPERA, the bill we are talking about, addressed this shortcoming in the criminal leniency program by also eliminating the cooperating party's exposure to civil liability. ACPERA limits the civil liability of the cooperating party to single damages. The remaining conspirators in the cartel, however, remain jointly and severally liable for all damages and treble damages. In this way the act strikes a carefully crafted balance, encouraging the cartel members to turn on each other while ensuring full compensation to the victims. The positive impact of this law cannot be overstated. ACPERA aided the Antitrust Division in obtaining $1 billion in criminal fines in fiscal year 2009 alone. Last year, confronted with the expiration of key provisions of ACPERA, we sponsored a bipartisan 1-year extension of the statute. We have since solicited input from a number of parties, including the Department of Justice, the American Bar Association, noted academics such as William Kovacic, and representatives of civil litigants, leniency applicants, and cartel whistleblowers. I want to ensure that the Justice Department has all the tools that it needs to continue its excellent work protecting consumers from price-fixing cartels. The legislation before us today extends the law for 10 years and incorporates a number of smaller findings based on other suggestions that have been made. Specifically, it makes minor changes to the law to ensure that companies provide timely cooperation to victims of the cartel in the related civil action in order to receive the reduced damages liability. It also ensures that no one in the amnesty process in the future will be adversely affected if this law were to sunset in the future. Finally, it commissions the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, to perform a 1-year study to examine several other suggestions that have been made to further improve the law. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5330) to amend the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 to extend the operation of such Act for a 5-year period ending June 22, 2015, and for other purpose, as amended.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5330) to amend the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 to extend the operation of such Act for a 5-year period ending June 22, 2015, and for other purpose, as amended.

Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. NADLER of New York. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 5330 extends by 10 years the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Extension Act of 2004, an important tool in combating illegal cartel behavior. Set to expire next month, the 2004 act promotes the detection and prosecution of illegal cartel behavior by giving participants in a price-fixing cartel powerful incentives to report the cartel to the Justice Department's Antitrust Division and to cooperate in the investigation and prosecution. Criminal cartel enforcement targets some of the worst crimes perpetrated on American consumers, but these crimes are not easily detected because the actual criminal activity takes place in secret meetings, behind closed doors among willing coconspirators. So even with the hard work of the Antitrust Division, price-fixing cartels can often go undetected. With hundreds of millions, or even billions, of dollars of unlawful profits at stake, these criminals work hard to keep their actions secret. In August 1993, the Antitrust Division revised its existing program to destabilize cartels by giving cartel participants a strong incentive to break the code of silence and report the cartel. This program offers amnesty from criminal prosecution for the first company to report the cartel. The company cannot have been the ringleader, and it has to continue cooperating fully with the criminal investigation and prosecution. The company's executives also receive amnesty if they give full cooperation. But there was still a disincentive for cartel participants to come forward because they remained subject to treble damages and joint and several liability in accompanying civil litigation. Six years ago, this Congress gave the Antitrust Division a new weapon to attack this disincentive head on. ACPERA, the bill we are talking about, addressed this shortcoming in the criminal leniency program by also eliminating the cooperating party's exposure to civil liability. ACPERA limits the civil liability of the cooperating party to single damages. The remaining conspirators in the cartel, however, remain jointly and severally liable for all damages and treble damages. In this way the act strikes a carefully crafted balance, encouraging the cartel members to turn on each other while ensuring full compensation to the victims. The positive impact of this law cannot be overstated. ACPERA aided the Antitrust Division in obtaining $1 billion in criminal fines in fiscal year 2009 alone. Last year, confronted with the expiration of key provisions of ACPERA, we sponsored a bipartisan 1-year extension of the statute. We have since solicited input from a number of parties, including the Department of Justice, the American Bar Association, noted academics such as William Kovacic, and representatives of civil litigants, leniency applicants, and cartel whistleblowers. I want to ensure that the Justice Department has all the tools that it needs to continue its excellent work protecting consumers from price-fixing cartels. The legislation before us today extends the law for 10 years and incorporates a number of smaller findings based on other suggestions that have been made. Specifically, it makes minor changes to the law to ensure that companies provide timely cooperation to victims of the cartel in the related civil action in order to receive the reduced damages liability. It also ensures that no one in the amnesty process in the future will be adversely affected if this law were to sunset in the future. Finally, it commissions the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, to perform a 1-year study to examine several other suggestions that have been made to further improve the law. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my resolution, H. Con. Res. 137, which expresses the sense of Congress that housing is a key component of combating the war against HIV and AIDS. I want to thank Chairman Frank and my colleagues, both parties on the Financial Services Committee, for bringing this resolution to the floor, and I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting this important resolution. It is remarkable how far we have come as a society in our understanding of the HIV virus. In the early 1980s and well into the 1990s, an HIV-positive diagnosis was seen as a death sentence. But nearly three decades after the launch of a global campaign to study the disease, to develop and disseminate treatment, and to teach prevention, those who contract HIV now have more than just an elusive hope for the future. They have a natural reality of living healthy and productive lives for decades. Today we have an entire medical, organizational, and legislative foundation from which we can provide information, medication, and health care to those who have contracted the disease. Yet, just as advances are being made to extend and enhance the lives of those living with HIV and AIDS, we still have a long way to go in the United States in order to make sure that everyone benefits. While we now have effective HIV medications, there are still many complicating factors in making sure that everyone can get and successfully use those medications. These drugs can be very expensive, forcing people to choose between lifesaving drugs and other essentials such as food, clothing, and housing. In addition, these complex medications often require refrigeration and precise daily routines and mealtimes for their administration. Successfully integrating these drugs into anyone's life has its complications. For those who are homeless, or who don't know where they will be sleeping day to day or month to month, the situation is extremely difficult and often, sadly, life threatening. Study after study has confirmed the connection between the ability to remain healthy after being diagnosed with HIV and access to stable housing. Here are just a few statistics. According to a 2007 study in the American Journal of Public Health, housing status is a more significant predictor of health care access and outcomes than individual characteristics, insurance status, substance abuse, and mental health comorbidities, or even service utilization. Up to 70 percent of all people living with HIV report a lifetime experience of homelessness or housing instability. Rates of HIV infection are 16 times higher, 16 times higher, among those who are homeless or unstably housed compared to similarly situated people with stable housing. Up to 14 percent of all homeless people are HIV positive, 10 times the rate in the general population. The death rate due to HIV or AIDS among homeless people living with HIV is seven to nine times the death rate due to HIV-AIDS among the general population. The studies are equally clear that ensuring access to stable housing is cost-effective. According to economic evaluation studies done by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, providing housing to those who are HIV positive either helps to save costs associated with treating these patients, or has similar effects such as those associated with kidney dialysis and screening for breast and colon cancer. If we are to tackle the spread and treatment of HIV and AIDS in our society, we absolutely must address the need for stable housing for people with HIV and AIDS. Housing is not a luxury; it's a necessity. And with stable, safe housing comes better health and healthier habits, especially for those living with HIV-AIDS. So I ask my colleagues in both parties to support this resolution so that we can move toward a sound and comprehensive policy for the prevention and treatment of HIV-AIDS.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my resolution, H. Con. Res. 137, which expresses the sense of Congress that housing is a key component of combating the war against HIV and AIDS. I want to thank Chairman Frank and my colleagues, both parties on the Financial Services Committee, for bringing this resolution to the floor, and I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting this important resolution. It is remarkable how far we have come as a society in our understanding of the HIV virus. In the early 1980s and well into the 1990s, an HIV-positive diagnosis was seen as a death sentence. But nearly three decades after the launch of a global campaign to study the disease, to develop and disseminate treatment, and to teach prevention, those who contract HIV now have more than just an elusive hope for the future. They have a natural reality of living healthy and productive lives for decades. Today we have an entire medical, organizational, and legislative foundation from which we can provide information, medication, and health care to those who have contracted the disease. Yet, just as advances are being made to extend and enhance the lives of those living with HIV and AIDS, we still have a long way to go in the United States in order to make sure that everyone benefits. While we now have effective HIV medications, there are still many complicating factors in making sure that everyone can get and successfully use those medications. These drugs can be very expensive, forcing people to choose between lifesaving drugs and other essentials such as food, clothing, and housing. In addition, these complex medications often require refrigeration and precise daily routines and mealtimes for their administration. Successfully integrating these drugs into anyone's life has its complications. For those who are homeless, or who don't know where they will be sleeping day to day or month to month, the situation is extremely difficult and often, sadly, life threatening. Study after study has confirmed the connection between the ability to remain healthy after being diagnosed with HIV and access to stable housing. Here are just a few statistics. According to a 2007 study in the American Journal of Public Health, housing status is a more significant predictor of health care access and outcomes than individual characteristics, insurance status, substance abuse, and mental health comorbidities, or even service utilization. Up to 70 percent of all people living with HIV report a lifetime experience of homelessness or housing instability. Rates of HIV infection are 16 times higher, 16 times higher, among those who are homeless or unstably housed compared to similarly situated people with stable housing. Up to 14 percent of all homeless people are HIV positive, 10 times the rate in the general population. The death rate due to HIV or AIDS among homeless people living with HIV is seven to nine times the death rate due to HIV-AIDS among the general population. The studies are equally clear that ensuring access to stable housing is cost-effective. According to economic evaluation studies done by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, providing housing to those who are HIV positive either helps to save costs associated with treating these patients, or has similar effects such as those associated with kidney dialysis and screening for breast and colon cancer. If we are to tackle the spread and treatment of HIV and AIDS in our society, we absolutely must address the need for stable housing for people with HIV and AIDS. Housing is not a luxury; it's a necessity. And with stable, safe housing comes better health and healthier habits, especially for those living with HIV-AIDS. So I ask my colleagues in both parties to support this resolution so that we can move toward a sound and comprehensive policy for the prevention and treatment of HIV-AIDS.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, we all hope for a peace agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians. Such an agreement, providing for adequate security safeguards for Israel, would benefit the citizens of Israel and would benefit the Palestinians. It would also help stabilize the Middle East and would inure to the national security interests of the United States. Every American administration for the last 40 years has recognized that prerequisite to the successful conclusion of any peace agreement is the maintenance of Israel's qualitative military superiority over any potential combination of state and nonstate aggressors. In recent years, unfortunately, we have permitted Israel's military superiority to lag, to begin to fall down. I want to congratulate the administration, the Obama administration for recognizing this and, in the last year and a half, sharply stepping up U.S. military assistance and U.S. military cooperation with Israel. Now we also face the threat from Iran and the threat of 40,000 rockets and missiles supplied by the Iranians in Lebanon in the possession of Hezbollah, which has said that it wants to kill every Jew. It would be nice if all the Jews moved to Israel so they could kill them with one swoop. And this accumulation of 40,000 rockets has been done in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which has not been enforced. So, hence, this bill. This bill, which comes to us from the administration, to provide 200- and-some-odd million dollars for the Iron Dome antimissile system is another step in maintaining Israel's military superiority and in protecting Israel's citizens against possibly unprovoked aggression and is an absolute prerequisite if we hope to see any peaceful settlement in the Middle East. I, therefore, congratulate the administration on taking this step and on the steps it has made to maintain Israel's military superiority. I thank the sponsors, and I urge the passage of this bill.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 1508, a bill originally introduced by Representative Wexler of Florida, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, 65 years ago the guns and bombs in Europe fell silent, and President Truman announced victory over Europe to a proud and free world. I rise today to commemorate the 65th anniversary of this great and very important day, and to recognize the sacrifices and accomplishments of the men and women who so bravely served to defeat hate and aggression. I join millions of people participating in thousands of events, in New York City, all across the United States, and around the world, in observing and honoring the courage of American service-members, allied soldiers, and homefront workers. During April 1945, allied forces led by the United States overran Nazi Germany from the west while Russian forces advanced from the east. On April 25, American and Russian troops met at the Elbe River. I want to recognize, in particular, the contribution of the Russian soldiers, who worked tirelessly alongside the American and British troops to bring down the Nazi regime. Their tremendous heroism and sacrifices will not be forgotten. After 6 years of war, suffering, and devastation, Nazi Germany was formally defeated on May 8, 1945. It was a bittersweet victory. Over 400,000 American soldiers died in World War II; 350,000 British soldiers gave their lives; and a staggering 20 million Russian soldiers and civilians perished in the war fighting German aggression on their home soil. The war also brought about the most horrendous systematic murder which humanity has ever known, the Holocaust. In memory of all the victims of World War II, it is our duty to raise our voices as one and say to the present and future generations that no one has the right to remain indifferent to anti-Semitism, xenophobia and racial or religious intolerance. This is an occasion to remember and commemorate. We must remember why the war was fought, remember the victims and heroes, and thank those who fought so hard and sacrificed so much. V-E Day marked the promise of a peaceful future for a Europe ravaged by unspeakable horror and war. Although freedom did not come to every European nation following the defeat of Nazi Germany, today we stand at the threshold of a very hopeful future based on sovereignty, democracy, freedom and cooperation. Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to honor those individuals who gave their lives during the liberation of Europe, to thank the veterans of World War II, and to commemorate the defeat of Nazism and Fascism by freedom-loving people.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1320. H. Res. 1320 describes what happened on Saturday, May 1, 2010, concerning the car bomb discovered in Times Square. As the Member of Congress who represents Times Square, I am particularly concerned about these events. We came perilously close to a terrible tragedy, with widespread injuries and loss of life. As described by this resolution, it was thanks to the alertness of two fellow New Yorkers, Mr. Lance Orton and Mr. Duane Jackson, that we first became aware of the car bomb. They brought it to the attention of the New York Police Department, NYPD. The heroes of the NYPD and FDNY then secured the area, took care of the bomb, and safely evacuated those nearby. Subsequently, agents and officials with the NYPD, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, and other law enforcement agencies worked quickly and diligently to apprehend the alleged perpetrator, Faisal Shahzad. Due to their speed, they apprehended him before he could flee the country. I want to salute all of those involved in addressing this situation and acting to protect the public. I sincerely thank them for their service. The events of this past weekend should be a loud wake-up call to all Americans. It is a stark reminder that there are sick people in this world who think it is right to murder innocent men, women, and children to make political points. It is a stark reminder that these sick people will stop at nothing to bring this war of terror to America. And, it is a stark reminder that New York City is a prime target. To protect New York City, and the millions of people who live, work, and visit each day, we need more antiterrorism funding directed there. The formulas used to distribute such funds, while improved, still ignore the reality that New York City is the number one target. Increased funds could be used, for example, to support more and better surveillance cameras for public places, as well as for a larger police presence. More money also could be used to fund the Securing the Cities Initiative. This effort is designed to prevent a radiological or nuclear device from coming into a major city like New York. The horror of what could have happened if the car bomb in Times Square had contained radiological or nuclear material is unimaginable. I have supported efforts to properly fund this program, and I will continue to do so. Further, it is important to remember that our ports, including New York City, remain vulnerable. I fought for, and we enacted into law, a requirement that 100 percent of shipping containers coming into the United States be scanned electronically before they arrive in this country. If we wait until a container with a radiological or nuclear device gets to our shores, it is already too late. We need to stop such shipments before they are here. The 100 percent scanning requirement takes effect in 2012, but DHS has indicated they likely will miss the deadline. I call on fellow Members of Congress concerned about terrorism to help me see that it is implemented fully, and as soon as possible. These are just a few ways we could make our country safer. The attempted attack on Times Square tells us we have no time to waste. To protect ourselves and our country, we must act now. I want to thank Representative Michael McMahon for introducing H. Res. 1320. I also want to again thank the heroes who acted so quickly to take care of what otherwise could have been a deadly situation. I urge all Members to support this resolution.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commend Captain Robert R. O'Brien Jr., Commander of the United States Coast Guard Sector New York, on his 40 years of distinguished service. After leaving a Roman Catholic seminary in 1970, Captain O'Brien chose to enlist in the United States Coast Guard. While enlisted, he served on the USCGC Laurel before joining Group Fort Macon as a small boat coxswain. In 1976, he was assigned as Officer-in-Charge of the USCGC Blackberry at Oak Island, North Carolina. Upon his promotion to Chief Boatswain's Mate in 1979, he was transferred to the largest Aid-to-Navigation Team in the Atlantic Area as the Officer- in-Charge. In 1980, he was again promoted to Chief Warrant Officer as the Commanding Officer of the Aid-to-Navigation Team for the Long Island Sound where he worked to ensure the safety of all nautical vessels by maintaining the integrity of the Long Island Sound's navigation systems. Captain O'Brien received his commission as Lieutenant in 1983. In 1999, he was assigned to the Marine Safety Office in Memphis, Tennessee as the Commanding Officer. He left for Washington, DC in 2002 to serve as the Coast Guard Liaison to the Navy's Military Sealift Command where he performed a dual role as direct representative of the NMSC and staff member of G-MOC. In 2003, he was promoted to Captain and assumed command of the Marine Safety Office in Hampton Roads before becoming commander of the Sector Hampton Roads in 2005. On June 15, 2006, Captain O'Brien became Commander of Sector New York making him responsible for missions such as search and rescue, law enforcement, maintenance of Aids-to-Navigation, and ship inspections. Most importantly, he worked each and every day to ensure the safety and security of the port and citizens of New York. Throughout his career, Captain O'Brien has diligently upheld his commitment to the Coast Guardsman's Creed. He is the recipient of multiple Meritorious Service Medals, Coast Guard Commendation Medals, and Coast Guard Commandant's Letter of Commendation Ribbons. He also holds the Coast Guard Cutterman, Surfman, and Coxswain pins as well as the Officer-in-Charge Afloat, Officer-in-Charge Ashore, and Command Ashore insignias. For 40 years, his leadership and commitment to the Coast Guard have helped to preserve the safety of our Nation's shores. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking and congratulating Captain O'Brien on his long and venerable service in the United States Coast Guard.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we all know that the prospect of an Iranian state armed with nuclear weapons is simply intolerable for the world. It poses an existential threat to our ally Israel. It would pose the threat of terrorism all over the Middle East under a nuclear umbrella, so we wouldn't be able to oppose what Iran was doing. It poses a threat of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It poses the threat that we cannot rule out that this regime would give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group like al Qaeda to use we can only guess where. Finally, some people say, you know, we coexisted with a nuclear Soviet Union for 40 years, 50 years. We deterred them, deterrence works. Deterrence cannot work when you have a government that is religious in nature, many of whose elements are millenarian; that is, they believe that the final destruction of Israel even if it causes a nuclear war would bring on the return of the Hidden Imam more quickly. You cannot reason with a suicide bomber. You cannot deter a suicide bomber, which is in essence what parts of the Iranian Government are. So we must prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. We also must avoid the Hobson's choice of having a situation where the advisers come in to the President and say, Mr. President, here are your two choices: One, do nothing in Iran, who will have nuclear weapons in a couple of weeks; two, militarily attack Iran. We don't want that Hobson's choice. We have to avoid a choice of military action or a nuclear Iran. The Bush administration was here for 8 years. They pursued a policy of talk tough and carry a toothpick. They talked tough but stopped nothing, and for 8 years the centrifuges increased and increased in number and went round and round and came closer and closer to a nuclear Iran. Now we have an administration that comes in with a policy of big sticks and big carrots and says first we will engage the Iranians. We will show them the advantages of avoiding a nuclear status, and we will by so doing establish the foundation for unified, not unilateral, sanctions action against Iran if necessary. Now we've reached the stage where we have to start engaging in real sanctions, and we have allies, and we will get those sanctions, and we must take tough sanctions to avoid that Hobson's choice. And this resolution before us is part of that, to impose tough sanctions on the Iranians to make them reconsider, or to make it impossible for them to develop nuclear weapons. So we must establish this now. We must pass this resolution because we do not want a Hobson's choice of military action or a nuclear Iran, the latter of which is intolerable, and the first of which is something we should not ever want. So I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for bringing it to the floor.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, due to other business, I missed votes on March 20, 2010. Had I been able to, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 148, an amendment offered by Mr. Bishop (UT); ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 149, an amendment offered by Mr. Cole (OK); ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 151, final passage of the Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2009; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 152, the TRICARE Affirmation Act; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 153, approving the Journal; and ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 154, Honoring the Life and Accomplishments of Donald Harington.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, due to official business, I missed a vote on March 10, 2010. Had I been able to, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 100, expressing condolences to the families of the victims of the February 27, 2010, earthquake in Chile, as well as solidarity with and support for the people of Chile as they plan for recovery and reconstruction.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. This health insurance package, despite real inadequacies, deals with three basic problems: First, 45,000 Americans a year die because they lack health insurance. By extending health insurance to 32 million more Americans, this bill will save these lives. A vote for this bill is a vote to save 45,000 lives a year. A ``no'' vote is a vote to acquiesce in these deaths. Second, 55 percent of all personal bankruptcies are caused by health care emergencies and 75 percent of people who file for bankruptcy because of a health emergency have insurance that proves inadequate when they get an expensive illness. By banning rescissions, banning the preexisting conditions insurance bar, banning annual lifetime caps, and by capping out-of-pocket expenses in new plans at $6,200 per year for an individual and $12,300 for a family, with lower caps for low-income families, this bill will ensure nobody goes broke because they get sick. Third, the Congressional Budget Office tells us this bill will reduce the deficit by $138 billion in the first 10 years and by $1.2 trillion in the next 10 years. Mr. Speaker, this bill is historic progress. We should embrace it. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it: the bill before us today is far from perfect. Like many of my colleagues in the House, I have outlined numerous concerns with the Senate-passed health insurance bill. And with good reason. The Senate-passed bill failed to include a public option, the best available way to refocus our misguided health care approach so that patients and doctors are put ahead of corporate bottom lines. It contained draconian provisions on so-called ``do- gooder'' states like my home state of New York. It imposed a new restriction on a woman's access to safe, legal reproductive health care. And it included a disastrous excise tax that would have done more to cost people health coverage than it would to lower the cost of health insurance. After considerable struggle and intense negotiation, my colleagues and I were able to ensure that ``do-gooder'' states like New York are not punished merely for taking a more progressive stance in the Medicaid system, turning what would have been a nearly $800 million loss in revenue to the State under the Senate-passed bill into a $2.1 billion net savings. We were also able to reduce the effect of the misguided excise tax, to remove special deals for specific states, to increase affordability credits, to close the Medicare Part D donut hole that ensnares thousands of seniors, and to include numerous consumer protections. And, even with these improvements, Mr. Speaker, the package before us today is not perfect. But I am reminded that, when our predecessors cast their votes in favor of Social Security in 1935, they passed an imperfect bill. And when they passed Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, they passed an imperfect bill. And in the years since those crucially important programs were signed into law, Members of Congress who have come after them have made--and will continue to make--vast improvements to those programs. Despite my concerns with the bill, our votes today mean something. Our votes today mean that 32 million more Americans will have access to health care coverage. Our votes mean that 45,000 Americans won't lose their lives each year because they are too poor to have health insurance or because their illnesses are too expensive. Our votes mean that the Medicare program will continue to provide important benefits to our seniors. And our votes mean that we will take a giant leap forward in our quest to ensure that all Americans have access to health care that they can afford. Mr. Speaker, I have spent much of my adult life fighting for universal health coverage. Today's vote doesn't end that fight. But we simply can't lose sight of how historic this moment is. That's why I am proud to cast my vote in favor of the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, a bill that will have immeasurable benefits for the American people for years to come.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this resolution. I am not convinced that the United States and its allies can end the 35-year civil war in Afghanistan, nor is that our responsibility. We should not use our troops to prop up a corrupt government. It is simply not justifiable to sacrifice more lives and more money on this war. We must rethink our policy. If we do not, we are doomed to failure and further loss of American lives. In late 2001, we undertook a justified military action in Afghanistan in response to the attacks of 9/11, and with moral clarity and singular focus we destroyed the al Qaeda camps, drove the Taliban from power, and pursued the perpetrators of mass terrorism. I supported that action. Today, however, our presence in Afghanistan has become counterproductive. We are bogged down amidst a longstanding civil war between feuding Afghans of differing tribes, classes, and regions whose goals have little to do with our own. Moreover, our very presence in Afghanistan has fueled the rising insurgency and emboldened those who oppose foreign intervention or occupation of any kind, who see us as foreign invaders. In seeking security and stability in Afghanistan, we have supported corrupt leaders with interests out of sync with the interests of ordinary Afghans. By backing the Afghan government, we have further distanced ourselves from the Afghan people and empowered the insurgency. If our mission in Afghanistan is indeed to prevent the safe harbor of terrorists within a weak or hospitable nation, that mission is largely accomplished, since we are told there are now fewer than a hundred al Qaeda in Afghanistan. In reality, terrorist plots can be hatched anywhere, in any nation, including our own. In fact, much of the planning for the 9/11 attacks took place in Western Europe. This does not mean we should stop pursuing terrorists. On the contrary. We must continue the multipronged effort to disrupt, dismantle, and destroy their ability to harm the United States. We must continue to track and block terrorist financing across the globe, increase intelligence activities focused on terrorists, increase diplomacy to rally our allies to our cause against terrorism, and, if necessary, use our Armed Forces to attack terrorist targets wherever they may be--a function quite distinct from using the military to secure a nation so that it can be rebuilt. Rebuilding Afghanistan is beyond both our capability and beyond our mandate to prevent terrorists from attacking the United States. I believe that a short and definitive timetable for withdrawing our troops is the only way to minimize further loss of life and to refocus our efforts more directly at the terrorists themselves. I do have one reservation, that the resolution before us seems to leave no room for a military role in Afghanistan under any circumstances. I believe we must reserve the right to use our Armed Forces to attack terrorist targets wherever they may be, and that would include terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, if they were reestablished there. But those camps are not there now, and our troops should not be there either. Mr. Kucinich's resolution points us in the right direction, a direction far better than the direction in which we are now headed. Accordingly, I urge approval of the resolution.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to concur in the Senate amendment, which would extend for a period of 1 year the sunset of three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. I very much regret that we have to be here today in this situation and that I have to oppose this legislation. I understand we are facing a deadline of this weekend, but I also believe that we have an obligation to do more than punt. That is effectively what we are doing today. We are punting this question to the next Congress. Both the House and the Senate have worked hard to examine not just these three provisions, but the entire PATRIOT Act, and to craft legislation that would improve its effectiveness, and that would better protect the civil liberties of all Americans. That process should be allowed to continue. Today, with this vote, that process effectively ends. The PATRIOT Act was passed at a time of panic, and in an extremely rushed manner. Many of its provisions were not well thought out, which is why Congress decided that certain parts of the PATRIOT Act should be enacted on a temporary basis so that we could revisit them after we had time to see how they worked. The original passage of the bill in 2001 was hijacked at the last minute in a way that should have stood as an embarrassment to the House. The Judiciary Committee back then reported the bill unanimously, with support from the most conservative to the most liberal members. We did business the way the American people have always said they wanted us to do business, through negotiation and compromise in open committee meetings. That was the high point. The low point came in the dead of night. Then-Attorney General Ashcroft objected to the bill, and so with the cooperation of the then- Republican leadership that bill was junked, and the bill that came to the floor was an entirely new bill written behind closed doors and not seen until shortly before we voted on it on the floor. The bill that recently passed the Judiciary Committee would have extended the expiring provisions, but would have improved them in response to the problems that experience has brought to light. With respect to roving wiretaps, for example, the committee extended the provision until 2013, and added language to clarify congressional intent that the government must describe its roving target with a sufficient degree of particularity to allow a judge to be able to distinguish the target from other potential users of places or facilities to be surveilled. Our bill would have allowed the ``lone wolf'' provision of FISA to sunset. This provision allows the issuance of a FISA warrant against individuals with no connection to a foreign power or other foreign entity or to a terrorist group. That is not the purpose of FISA, and in fact Todd Hinnen, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's National Security Division, testified in the hearing before my subcommittee that this provision has never been used in the 8 years in which it has been enforced. There is no reason why a so-called ``lone wolf,'' concededly unconnected, not connected to a foreign power, not connected, concededly, to a terrorist group--otherwise he wouldn't be a lone wolf--there is no reason why such a person could not be subject to a normal Title III wiretap warrant. That is why the committee voted to let this provision sunset. We also added some procedural protections to section 215 orders which allow the government to seize all sorts of information concerning what an individual has been reading without a warrant. The bill would have required the President to report to Congress on whether the procedures for sensitive collections could be further modified so as to enhance civil liberties protections without undermining national security objectives. This provision was also extended to the end of 2013 in the legislation reported by the Judiciary Committee. My bill controlling the use of the much-abused National Security Letters was included in this bill as well. These letters, issued with no court oversight, have been used to obtain all sorts of material, and have been joined with gag orders on the recipients, gag orders that were recently struck down as unconstitutional by the courts. The Justice Department's Office of Inspector General has issued some damning reports on the misuse of these letters, and the section is in dire need of reform. These reforms, which were a part of the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee, should be part of any legislative action extending these provisions of the PATRIOT Act. I regret that we are not going to continue this process of improving the PATRIOT Act. I regret we do not have before us a very short-term extension designed to give us more time to finish this work in the balance of this Congress. But we are punting to the next Congress, which for all practical purposes means that we are extending the PATRIOT Act unchanged for the indefinite future. I believe that our Nation and our liberties will suffer as a result of this. I hope that this vote today, contrary to what I expect, will not stop my colleagues from continuing to improve our intelligence-gathering laws, and specifically continuing to examine and improve the PATRIOT Act in a timely manner.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, I missed one vote on February 23, 2010. I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 55, final passage of H. Res. 1046.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, due to other business, I missed one vote on February 3, 2010. Had I been able to, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 34, an amendment offered by Mr. Hastings (D-FL) to the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2009 (H.R. 4016).

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the National Urban Fellows on the occasion of its 40th anniversary. The National Urban Fellows has recruited and developed mid-career men and women of color in pursuit of equity and social justice since 1970. National Urban Fellows is the only program in the country where individuals receive both an advanced degree and essential leadership experience. The 14-month, full-time graduate degree program comprises two semesters of academic course work and a nine-month mentorship assignment. The program culminates with a Master of Public Administration Degree (MPA) from Bernard M. Baruch College, School of Public Affairs, of the City University of New York. After graduation Alumni work in public service, government and non-profit leadership. For 40 years National Urban Fellows has developed leaders who identify issues, shape solutions and form policy. Today, 40 years later, National Urban Fellows has graduated well over 1,100 men and women of color who hold policy-making positions as mayors, city and county managers, commissioners and officers of major nonprofit and philanthropic organizations in urban areas across the country. The National Urban Fellows program's 40 years of distinguished work is commendable and fully deserving of the recognition. Please join me in congratulating this esteemed organization.