Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of this amendment to H.R. 4173, which I sponsored along with Congressman Marshall, Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers, and many other of my distinguished colleagues. This amendment would help millions of Americans across the Nation and correct a glaring anomaly in our current law. If you are a family farmer, if you are a real estate speculator, or if you own 5 or 20 or 50 homes, for example, you are allowed to use bankruptcy to modify your mortgage. The only exception is the family home. Our amendment would change that and allow bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages for people facing imminent foreclosure. Millions of Americans have lost their homes due to foreclosure and millions more are at risk of doing so. In fact, there were 937,840 foreclosure filings in the third quarter of 2009. This was up 23 percent from one year ago. It is time we helped these families, just as we have helped large banks and other financial institutions. Now, in the past we have heard from lenders that this kind of change will increase borrowing costs for everyone else. Of course, this is the same industry that in 2005 told us that making bankruptcy more onerous would reduce people's interest costs by $400 per year on their credit cards. Nothing of the sort happened. And we tried an alternative--the voluntary modification route. Unfortunately, it has not helped the vast majority of distressed homeowners. As of November 30, only 4 percent of struggling homeowners in the Treasury Department's Home Affordable Modification Program received permanent loan modifications--31,382 out of 728,000. This week, the Financial Services Committee heard testimony that this program is ``destined to fail'' because it does not address negative equity. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that one million households could benefit from this measure, with no additional cost to taxpayers. So, it is time to take the next step. It is time to give homeowners the same rights as everyone else, and let them modify their mortgages in bankruptcy. It is time to help average citizens stay in their homes, just like we have helped big financial institutions. I strongly urge all Members to support this amendment.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution offered by our colleague, Representative Wasserman Schultz. With this resolution, which should have the full support of every Member of the House, we will be on record with our commitment not to allow women over 40 to go without the life-saving tests currently available to root out breast cancer at early stages. This resolution states our support for continued research into developing better tests so that no woman will face a death sentence due to a diagnosis of breast cancer. I thank my colleague, Representative Wasserman Schultz, for bringing this resolution to the floor; but, unfortunately, this resolution won't cure the potential problem created by, or actually highlighted by, or dampen the frustration sparked by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's decision a few weeks ago. Even before the recommendations of the task force, and having nothing to do with the recommendations of the task force, many insurance companies today deny coverage for screening mammograms to women over 40. To deal with this problem, we should pass a bill that I introduced, H.R. 955, the Mammogram and MRI Availability Act, which would give assurance to women over 40 which would legally mandate that any insurance policy that covers diagnostic mammograms must also cover screening mammograms for all women over 40. Women over 40 would have legal assurances that no insurance company would be allowed to deny her coverage for a mammogram. I hope this resolution will serve as a first step toward attaining adoption of mandatory legislation to guarantee annual mammography coverage to all women over 40 and MRIs to women who need it because they have a particular genetic or other family history indicating a specific susceptibility to breast cancer. I ask my colleagues to show their commitment to women's health by voting ``yes'' on this resolution and by joining me as a cosponsor of H.R. 995.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Stupak amendment. Despite significant efforts made by the underlying bill to level the playing field for women and to end discrimination against them in the health insurance market, this amendment adds a new discriminatory measure against women. Under this proposal, if a woman is of low or moderate income and receives tax credits to help her to afford the premiums for a health insurance plan she purchases on the exchange, she cannot choose a plan that covers abortion services. And if she chooses the public option, she cannot receive abortion coverage at all, even if she receives no help of any kind and pays for the plan entirely by herself. The provision inserted in the underlying bill by our colleague, Representative Capps, extends the Hyde amendment in current law by ensuring that no Federal dollars can be used to fund abortions. That should be sufficient. This is a bill to extend health care to all Americans. It should not be used as a political football to try to change existing laws regarding abortion coverage. Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my opposition to this discriminatory amendment and ask my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Stupak amendment. Despite significant efforts made by the underlying bill to level the playing field for women and end discrimination against them in the health insurance market, this amendment adds a new discriminatory measure against women. Under the Stupak proposal, if a woman is of low- or moderate income and receives tax credits to help her afford the premiums for a health plan she purchases through the Exchange, she cannot choose a plan that covers abortion services. And if a woman chooses the public option, she cannot receive abortion coverage--even if she receives no help of any kind and pays for the plan entirely by herself. The Stupak amendment says to women--if you think you might have an unintended pregnancy, you should purchase separate insurance. Put another way, this amendment requires women to plan that they will encounter an unplanned pregnancy. This defies logic and is absurd. The compromise provision inserted in the underlying bill by our colleague, Representative Capps, extends the Hyde Amendment in current law by ensuring that no federal dollars can be used to fund abortions. That should be sufficient. This is a bill to extend health care to all Americans. It should not be used as a political football to change existing law regarding abortion coverage. Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my opposition to this discriminatory amendment and ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have spent much of my adult life fighting for greater health care rights and for universal health coverage. This historic bill goes a long way toward achieving those goals. Around the country, we see millions of people with inadequate or no coverage. Families go to sleep at night knowing that they are one serious illness away from bankruptcy. And the unemployed are people who face going it alone in the prohibitively expensive individual coverage market or, worse, going without insurance at all. While I would have preferred a single-payer system, I am happy to support a bill that contains a public health insurance option that will provide competition to the private insurance companies and will drive down rates. This bill will end discrimination against people with preexisting health conditions, will end the practice of dropping patients when they are sick, and will strengthen and enhance Medicare by ending the doughnut hole and extending the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund. Mr. Speaker, the status quo is not an option. We have an opportunity to get universal health care coverage in this country to implement the competitive public health insurance option that puts the patient before the quarterly financial report, and to ensure that just because you lose your job, you won't lose your health insurance. This is monumental and historic, and I am proud to support the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Mr. Speaker, I have spent much of my adult life fighting for greater health care rights and universal health coverage. This historic bill, H.R. 3962, makes great strides toward achieving those goals. Around the country, we see millions of people with inadequate or no coverage, with another 14,000 Americans joining the ranks of the uninsured each day. We see families who go to sleep at night knowing they are one serious illness away from bankruptcy, the reason for 55 percent of all bankruptcies filed last year. We see the rising ranks of the unmployed who face going it alone in the prohibitively expensive individual coverage market--or worse, going without insurance at all. And we see 20,000 people die every year because they have no health insurance. At the same time that this stark reality hits hardworking Americans, insurance companies have conspired to keep costs high. These costs, upward of 15-35 percent squandered on outrageously high administrative costs, do nothing to make people healthier but do much to line the pockets of insurance companies and help their corporate bottom line. This is unacceptable. We must take action. That's why I support the Affordable Health Care for America Act. As with any legislation, there have been some compromises made along the way. I would have preferred a single payer system, the most effective and least costly way to implement a health delivery system. But I, like so many of my colleagues, have come to see a competitive public option as the best available way to refocus our misguided health care approach. A public option will put patients and doctors, not corporate bottom lines, at the forefront. This public option will add much needed competition into an insurance market that must be kept honest, and it will work to drive down rates. Mr. Speaker, this past August, political pundits and TV-talking heads had the public option dead on arrival. Yet, because of the efforts of progressive Members in Congress, in which I was proud to join, we succeeded in keeping the public option in this bill and ensured that the American people would be given an alternative to corporate health insurance. And make no mistake about it--the public option weathered the storms of misinformation, slander, and downright lies because the American people saw through the political game playing and saw the public option for what it is--an option, not a mandate, that will help stem the cost of ever-rising health care costs. In addition to the public option, this national health reform bill implements key insurance industry reforms, strengthens Medicare, and immediately gives hope to the millions of Americans currently living without health insurance. It will end discrimination against pre-existing conditions, and end the cruel practice of rescission, which allows insurance companies to drop people from coverage if their illness is considered too expensive. This bill also guarantees that people with insurance will not face devastating costs when they get sick by placing limits on out-of-pocket medical expenses, and creating, for the first time ever, a voluntary long-term care program. And H.R. 3962 would end the blanket exemption insurance companies currently enjoy from anti-trust laws. With this change, we can now bring anti-trust enforcement against the egregious practices of price-fixing and market allocation. H.R. 3962 contains numerous provisions that help our seniors by strengthening and enhancing the Medicare program. This bill reduces the donut hole to $500 immediately and eliminates it entirely by 2019. It allows the HHS secretary to negotiate prescription drug costs, which I have long advocated for, eliminates out-of-pocket expenses for preventive care for seniors, and extends the solvency of the Medicare trust fund for at least five years. Small businesses also receive desperately needed assistance from this bill. Initially, businesses with up to 25 employees, then growing to businesses with up to 100 employees by 2015, will be able to join the health exchange, which will allow small business employees to take advantage of group rates and a broader range of insurance options--a key change that will go a long way toward helping small businesses keep down their number one expense, which is the cost of providing health care coverage. For America's young people, who make up 29 percent of the uninsured in America, H.R. 3962 will permit parents to extend coverage to their children until their 27th birthday. To help American families defray the costs of health coverage, this bill extends assistance on a sliding scale to families earning up to $88,000 per year. This will go a long way toward ending the cruel choice between health care coverage and other necessities. Mr. Speaker, there are some who have said that health care reform is too hard. There are those who have allowed misinformation and politics to push them to root against helping their fellow Americans to have access to quality, affordable health care. There are even those who, for reasons I fail to grasp, want to continue with the status quo. To those people, Mr. Speaker, I say--the status quo is not an option. We have a remarkable opportunity in front of us. We have an opportunity to make fundamental changes to the way we view health care and deliver services, to implement a competitive public health insurance option that puts the patient before the quarterly financial report. And, with passage of this bill, we will be able to say for the first time in this country that just because you lose your job, you won't lose your health insurance. Mr. Speaker, this is monumental. This is historic. And I am proud to cast my vote in favor of the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution recognizing the commissioning of the USS New York LPD 21. When the USS New York is commissioned on Saturday, it will serve as a memorial of September 11, 2001, in more than just name. Its bow, made from 7.5 tons of steel forged from the wreckage of the World Trade Center, will serve as evidence of America's persistent determination. This ship will serve in our Navy, will serve to defend freedom, and will serve to recognize the fearless amongst us, those who willingly sacrifice their safety in order to protect our own and our freedom. The bravery and dedication of our men and women in uniform serving overseas never cease to amaze me and can never be forgotten. I want to commend the captain, Commander Curt Jones, a native New Yorker, and the crew of the USS New York and the United States Navy on the commissioning of our newest naval vessel. The presence of the USS New York in the naval fleet will serve as a constant reminder of the sacrifices made by so many Americans on September 11, 2001. The Navy should be commended for naming the ship the USS New York and for naming two future San Antonio class vessels, the USS Somerset and the USS Arlington, currently under construction in honor of those who gave their lives defending the country at the Pentagon and on United Flight 93 on September 11. This is a fitting tribute to our fallen friends. Thousands died on September 11, 2001, at the World Trade Center, at the Pentagon, and near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and many more police, firefighters, first responders, residents, workers, school children, and others continue to suffer terrible health consequences as a result of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers because of the attacks by the terrorists. I want to take a brief moment today to note and to urge my colleagues to support the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, H.R. 847, which would provide health care and a path to compensation for the first responders and community members who still suffer the effects of that terrible attack. We ought to honor their continuing sacrifices today as well. I would like to thank the entire New York delegation who joined me as original cosponsors of this resolution, and also all the additional cosponsors of H. Res. 856 who, by their actions, have helped us move this resolution so quickly to the House floor. I must also thank Chairman Skelton and his staff for their help in crafting the resolution and building support for its passage. Furthermore, I was pleased that we were able to do this in a bipartisan fashion, and I want to thank Ranking Member McKeon for cosponsoring the resolution as well. I am proud to say there are some things that rise above partisan politics. Supporting our troops, honoring those who defend us, and honoring the victims of September 11 is neither Democratic nor Republican; it is simply American. This resolution can be characterized the same way. I urge everyone to support it.

Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report with some serious reservations. This legislation will finally enact the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. That is a historic, albeit long overdue, accomplishment. I am concerned, however, about the section dealing with military commissions. President Obama's goal, which I share, is a system that is fair, legitimate and effective. But we already have that in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and our Article III courts. We should use these existing tools and stop insisting on a new and inevitably second- class military commissions system. But given the existing Military Commissions Act of 2006, which allows for the admission of statements obtained through the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation methods, we should support the improvements in this bill--placing further limits on the use of coerced testimony and hearsay; expanding the scope of appellate review to include review of facts and not just law; and taking greater account of the need for adequate defense counsel and resources. These changes do not go far enough, and additional changes suggested by the Judiciary Committee--including a sunset provision, a voluntariness requirement for all statements, a different appeals structure, and a prohibition on the trial of child soldiers by military commission--should have been adopted. Nonetheless, I support the improvements made by this conference report with the hope that we can make further progress in the future. I urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report. Mr. Speaker, whether it is because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability of the victim, these violent acts causing death or bodily injury target not just an individual but an entire group. These crimes do, and are often intended to, spread terror among all members of the group. Today, we have the opportunity to do the right thing. I hope we can agree to do so. I am concerned, however, about the section dealing with military commissions It makes some important improvements, but in some key ways the system will remain at odds with our best traditions. When President Obama initially suspended use of military commissions, I was optimistic that we had seen the end of this flawed system. President Obama has since signaled his intent to revive the commissions, and has called for reforms that would bring them in line with the rule of law. President Obama's goal which I share, is a system that is fair, legitimate, and effective. But we already have that in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and our Article III courts. We should use these existing tools and stop insisting on a new and inevitably second-class military commission system. But, given the existing Military Commissions Act of 2006, which can be used to try detainees and allows for the admission of statements obtained through the use of cruel, inhuman, and degrading interrogation methods, we should support the improvements in this bill. This bill improves existing law by placing further limits on the use of coerced testimony and hearsay, expanding the scope of appellate review to include review of facts and not just law, and taking greater account of the need for adequate defense counsel and resources. These changes do not go far enough, and additional changes suggested by the Judiciary Committee--including a sunset provision, a limitation on the use of military commissions for Guantanamo detainees, a voluntariness requirement for all statements, a different appeals structure, and a prohibition on the trial of child soldiers by military commission-- should have been adopted. Nonetheless, I support the improvements made by this conference report, with the hope that we can make further progress in the future. So I will support this conference report, mindful that our work is not done. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to instruct conferees. For too long we have debated whether this Nation should take a stand against the scourge of hate crimes, crimes of violence in which the victim has been singled out because of who he or she is. It is remarkable that at this late date this should remain a controversial idea. The idea that someone could be singled out for a crime of violence because of his or her actual or perceived race or religion or color or gender or sexual orientation or gender identity or disability is simply disgusting. These crimes are real and they're all too frequent. That is a fact. It is not, as some would have you believe, a hoax. Here are the most recent statistics from the FBI. In 2007 there were 7,621 violent hate crimes, 51 percent because of racial bias, 18 percent because of religious bias, 17 percent sexual orientation bias, 13 percent because of ethnicity or national origin bias, and 1 percent because of a bias against a disability. Those are real Americans being victimized because of who they are and not for anything they did. And when you victimize someone for who they are you are terrorizing an entire community. It sends a clear and unmistakable message that members of that group are not safe in your community. It extends well beyond the individual victim. This House has already spoken clearly. On April 29 of this year, a bipartisan majority voted by a margin of 248-175 to pass this legislation. I do not believe that Members of this House will now turn their backs on that historic vote. If you believe it was right to vote for this legislation, then you know you have the chance to make it law and to make history. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act will in no way undercut the other purposes of this Defense bill. In fact, by protecting all Americans from the scourge of violent hate crime, we will be making everyone more secure. A new section added by the Senate prescribes severe penalties for anyone assaulting a member of our military or destroying their property because of that person's being a member of the Armed Forces. I happen to think that's an important addition. I hope there won't be a single Member of this House who will fail to support that provision against hate crimes against the military. I certainly think it belongs in this bill. I also want to be sure everyone understand that this bill contains express safeguards against prosecutions based on someone's speech or religious beliefs. This legislation applies only to acts of violence. And despite the statement a moment ago, the fact that somebody ignorantly arrested someone against the law and that the charges were subsequently dismissed says nothing about the validity of the law. Every crime requires that the government prove some element of intent, and we punish crimes differently based on the criminal's intent. Shooting someone as a crime of passion is not treated the same way as shooting someone in a murder-for-hire scheme, and it is certainly not the same as an accidental shooting. The law makes these distinctions, as it should. This does not make murder for hire a thought crime. Society simply judges such crimes more harshly, and it is right that we do so. It is the same with hate crimes. These are particularly disgusting crimes and they deserve to be treated differently than other assaults or murders. I realize that not everyone believes this, but there is a growing social consensus on this point, both in the States and at the national level. For many years this Congress sat on its hands and refused to pass anti-lynching laws. Many of the same arguments we heard then against anti-lynching laws we are hearing now against this provision. It was a disgrace then. It is a disgrace now. It was a disgrace that we did not act then. It would be a disgrace if we do not act now. It would be a disgrace if we pass this motion to instruct conferees. I urge rejection of this motion.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NADLER of New York. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Not for the moment. Once Congress passes a bill of attainder and undertakes to punish an organization for doing whatever it did, we sacrifice our liberties, we sacrifice our due process protections, and that's why it's not up to us to punish. It's up to the court to punish.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. The gentleman from California says the American people get it. They know what terrible things ACORN has done. That's not the point. We do not punish people by referendum or by unpopularity. Congress should not punish people. That's why the Constitution says we cannot pass a bill of attainder. We have courts. We have due process. We have administrative agencies to punish people or organizations for doing wrong things. Mr. DREIER: Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NADLER of New York. Thank you. The point is, of course, I'm not going to debate the merits of the charges against ACORN. Charges have been made. As I said, some of them may be valid. They may be not valid. And if they're valid, they may indicate pervasive corruption; they may indicate minor errors. We don't know. We'll find out. But the point is the Constitution prohibits Congress from acting on that information by punishing an organization. They should be punished, if indeed they should be punished, by an administrative agency, by cutting off funds, by HUD or whatever.

Mr. NADLER of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, Madam Speaker. The Constitution prohibits Congress from passing a bill of attainder, a bill that, no matter what its form, punishes either a named individual or an easily ascertainable group of people. Last week, to the great shame of this House, we passed a bill of attainder, a bill stating that no Federal funds shall go to a specifically named organization, ACORN. Now, in this conference report, we are about to do it again. Why? Because of a desire to punish ACORN. And yet, as ACORN's lawyer wrote to us recently, this is, ``to my research, unprecedented in congressional history. Never before has one corporation or entity been the subject of such broad reaching punishment by congressional mandate. ``The punishment here did not follow some criminal or administrative process with basic due process protections. It flowed out of a Fox News network-led call for a pubic lynching. There was no statement of charges and no reference to a judicial or administrative finding of wrongdoing by ACORN. All that occurred was a Member of Congress making a motion supported with a speech full of negative and largely inaccurate observations about ACORN, followed by a vote.'' The fact is ACORN has never been convicted of anything. Lots of charges. So far, no proof in any court or any administrative proceeding. But some charges may be true. And they may or may not--I think not, but that's just a personal opinion--indicate substantial misfeasance. But that's why we have courts and administrative agencies and congressional investigating committees. It may be that ACORN is guilty of various infractions, and, if so, it ought to be vetted or maybe sanctioned by the appropriate administrative agency or by the judiciary. But Congress must not be in the business of punishing individual organizations or people without trial, and that is what the provision in this conference report does. It prohibits any Federal funds from going to ACORN for any purpose, clearly as a punishment for alleged misdeeds. This is a classic bill of attainder, and as such, it is flatly prohibited by the Constitution. We must not ignore the Constitution. Whatever one may think of the subject matter or the organization, the Constitution and the ban on bills of attainder are there for the protection of all our liberties. And we ignore the constitutional provisions at our peril. This bill of attainder should not be in this conference report, and I will, therefore, vote against the conference report.

Mr. NADLER of New York. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NADLER of New York. There is an investigation, and let it proceed and let it come to a conclusion, but there is no conclusion yet.

Mr. NADLER of New York. The point is, of course, as I said--and, by the way, it was I who talked about right-wing radio, not the gentleman from Worcester.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. A little while ago, the House passed an amendment to the bill that we were considering that says no contract for Federal funds may ever go to ACORN, a named organization, or to any individual organization affiliated with ACORN. Unfortunately, this was done on the spur of the moment and nobody had the opportunity to point out that this is a flat violation of the Constitution, constituting a bill of attainder. The Constitution says Congress shall pass no bill of attainder. The Supreme Court has ruled a bill of attainder is a legislative act that, no matter what their form, applies either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment, and then without a judicial trial. That's exactly what this amendment does. It may be that ACORN is guilty of various infractions, and if so, it ought to be investigated, maybe sanctioned, whatever, by the appropriate administrative agency or maybe by the judiciary. Congress must not be in the business of punishing individual organizations or people without trial. That's what this amendment did. It is flatly prohibited by the Constitution. And once confidence in this institution is sapped, when we ignore the Constitution, we ignore constitutional principles, that whatever one may think of the subject matter or the organization here, the Constitution and the ban on bills of attainder is there for the protection of the liberties of all of us. It's unfortunate that we passed this, and I certainly hope it is removed in the conference committee.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague, Representative Mike Pence, which would prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Title X family planning funds. For many women and men, the area Planned Parenthood is their only source of health care. In my home state of New York, more than 30 percent of Title X providers are Planned Parenthood health centers. Planned Parenthood is an essential community health provider, acting as a source of primary care for thousands of women and men. In addition to providing routine gynecological exams, cervical cancer screenings and breast exams, Planned Parenthood clinics also offer anemia testing, cholesterol screening, diabetes screening, employment and sports physicals, high blood pressure screening, physical examinations, smoking cessation, thyroid screening, adoptive services, prenatal services, and childbirth classes. Despite the important role that Planned Parenthood plays in the health care delivery system in communities across the country, the Pence amendment would single out Planned Parenthood and prohibit it from receiving Title X funding for one reason--because, in addition to the multitude of other health services they offer for women and men, Planned Parenthood also offers abortion services--services that are lawful and constitutionally protected, and which are NOT paid for with a single federal tax dollar. Mr. Chair, at its heart, the Pence amendment seeks to punish a single health care entity for providing a lawful, constitutionally protected service. Put another way, the Pence amendment hopes to force Planned Parenthood to abandon the exercise of a lawful act, which is inextricably and critically tied to a woman's constitutional right to reproductive services. This amendment--in addition to being misguided and mean-spirited--is suspect, at best, and is an unconstitutional condition, at worst. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Pence amendment.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. I rise in support of the rule for the Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act, and I think that the transportation appropriation in this bill is excellent, but I'm going to focus on a different aspect of it. I want to, in particular, thank Chairman Olver for securing more than $18 billion for tenant-based rental assistance and $8.7 billion for project-based rental assistance. This represents about $3.7 billion more than last year. This should be enough to fully fund the renewal of section 8 tenant-based and project-based rental assistance and provide $75 million for about 10,000 new incremental tenant-based vouchers for homeless veterans. The bill also has $350 million for the Housing for People with AIDS program, also known as HOPWA, $50 million more than was appropriated last year. This is a great victory for these programs, and I applaud the chairman and the committee for their efforts to secure these badly needed resources. I also want to thank all of my colleagues who signed on to my letter to the committee in support of increases for section 8 housing and for the HOPWA program earlier this year. For many years, our letters were ignored and we were forced to come to the floor and offer an amendment to increase funding for section 8 housing and HOPWA, where more than not we were successful at passing amendments to increase funding for these programs. I am pleased that this year, because of the efforts of the chairman, that was not necessary for us to come to the floor with an amendment. But I do want to recognize that the need for affordable housing will still greatly outpace the supply. During this time of economic recession, much more needs to be done. I understand the Financial Services Committee is working on legislation to reform the section 8 program and authorize 150,000 additional new vouchers, and I look forward to working with them to pass that legislation so we can more properly address the severe housing crisis by substantially increasing funding for vouchers. Similarly, while we requested $360 million this year for the HOPWA program and $350 million is appropriated in this bill, the National AIDS Housing Coalition estimates that over $3.2 billion is required to truly meet the housing needs for all those living with HIV/AIDS. While we could always do more when it comes to funding for section 8 and HOPWA, I recognize it is no small feat to increase funding for a program by $3.7 billion in a single year for section 8 and $350 million for HOPWA. I commend the chairman for his leadership, and I want to thank him for his continued support for these important housing initiatives. And I also want to thank the chairman and the committee for their initiatives in the transportation field and for the funds they have brought to this. And I want to express, while I have the opportunity, my agreement with Chairman Oberstar that it is essential that we pass, this year, a reauthorization of the transportation bill and not put it off for 18 months into the next Presidential election year cycle if we're going to start catching up to the necessity to keep our infrastructure from falling apart, and also if we're going to get some more stimulus for this economy that we so desperately need during this recession. So I support the rule. I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 2892, the Homeland Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010. While the bill provides vitally necessary funds to secure our nation's safety, it also contains a troubling provision regarding people who are currently detained at the Guantanamo Bay facility. This provision would prohibit the use of any funds in the bill to provide any immigration benefits to any Guantanamo detainee. Examples provided by the bill of such benefits include ``a visa, admission into the United States, parole into the United States, or classification as a refugee or applicant for asylum.'' The language does include the proviso that nothing in this provision prohibits detainees from being brought into the United States for prosecution. Now, I want to prosecute and punish anyone who has sought to harm the United States or is responsible for attacks on the United States and its people. But, we do not know that everyone in Guantanamo fits into this category. There are likely people still imprisoned at Guantanamo today who are there, not because they are a threat, but because our government can not figure out what to do with them. As you know, the Bush Administration already released many people from Guantanamo who were wrongly detained there and our courts have ordered the release of others who apparently were not linked to any terrorist organization and pose no threat to the United States. There were, and possibly still are, innocent people being detained by our government at Guantanamo Bay. It is shameful for our country to deny a visa to an innocent person who we have determined is no threat to the United States, who the United States wrongly imprisoned for years, who may be prosecuted if returned to his own country, and who the United States may not be able to send to any other country. Frankly, if they are innocent of any crime and pose no threat to the United States, they should be allowed to come to the United States. In addition, I do not see how we can deny them asylum if we determine they have a legitimate fear of persecution if sent anywhere else. Because the Homeland Security bill provides such critical funding to first responders all over the country, and especially to my city of New York, I can not justify voting against it. Funding for these services is desperately needed. However, I want to warn my colleagues about the dangers of reflexively adding provisions to every appropriations bill that may end up further harming innocent people who were mistakenly imprisoned by our government. If you want to make a political point that you oppose terrorists, fine. But, you have to allow for the fact that until we know for sure that all of the people remaining at Guantanamo are terrorists, it is not right to punish everyone who is there just to make a political point. We have a moral obligation to do better.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, it is always a sad day when the House has to impeach a Federal judge. Yet, today that is our constitutional duty. Impeachment is a power that Congress rarely uses; both because it is rare that a Federal judge will so abuse his position that impeachment is required, and because it could affect the independence of the Judiciary. The Constitution reserves this extraordinary remedy for extreme cases. This, regrettably, is one of those cases. The task force that was established by this House to inquire into whether Judge Kent should be impeached has recommended the articles of impeachment that we are considering today. We want to commend the members of the Task Force and the Chairman, Mr. Schiff, for their independent, diligent and thorough investigation. The evidence they've assembled is copious and sobering. They've made a strong case that impeachment is both appropriate and necessary. First, Judge Kent has pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and has been sentenced on his conviction to 33 months in prison. As part of the plea proceedings, Judge Kent signed a statement in which he admitted and described the conduct that constituted the obstructive conduct. He adopted this signed statement under oath before the court at the time of the plea. In this signed statement, Judge Kent admitted making false statements to a Special Investigatory Committee of the Fifth Circuit about allegations of sexually assaulting court employee. In that same document, he also admitted having ``nonconsensual sexual contact'' with two subordinate court employees. Two of the articles of impeachment allege that Judge Kent sexually assaulted these two women. His admissions that he had nonconsensual sexual contacts with the women is, indeed, a powerful one. Any unwanted sexual touching can be considered a sexual assault, so Judge Kent, by his own words, has come close to admitting that he assaulted the women, the only remaining question being the extent of the assault, and that question has been addressed by the sworn testimony of the women before the Task Force detailing Judge Kent's repeated abuse of his authority by coercing nonconsensual sex at the price of retaining their jobs. In short, the executive branch may prosecute a Federal judge for violation of the criminal laws, and the judicial branch may punish that Federal judge upon his conviction, but only the Congress can remove a Federal judge if it determines that his behavior renders him unfit to hold his office. In circumstances such as these, where Judge Kent misused the power of his office to undermine, rather than to uphold, the law, and where he abused his power as a Federal judge by sexually assaulting subordinates and lying to the Fifth Circuit Investigatory Committee about that, our duty to impeach is clear. For these reasons, I intend to vote in favor of each of the articles of impeachment now before the House. I urge all the Members of this House to do likewise.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).