Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, today, I joined Rep. Carolyn Maloney and my colleagues from New York in introducing a revised version of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. Working closely with the AFL-CIO, the City of New York, the local community, the House Leadership, and the Committees of jurisdiction we have revised the bill to reduce the overall cost of the bill while ensuring that it will provide a comprehensive, long term solution to problems faced by first responders, area residents, workers, students, and others in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. I am pleased that we are making progress on this legislation, and I appreciate all of the work that has gone into the bill by all of the parties involved. I particularly want to thank Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic Leadership for helping to coordinate and focus our efforts. I am aware that more work remains to further refine the bill, but we are well on our way to finalizing an excellent piece of legislation that will help thousands of victims of the September 11 attacks. I am hopeful that Congress will be able to act swiftly to move this bill by the seventh anniversary of the attacks, and that the bill will be signed into law before the end of this Congress.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution honoring the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary. I would like to thank Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, and the rest of my colleagues on the Education and Labor Committee for bringing this resolution to the floor. Founded in 1958, Ailey has become widely recognized as one of the world's premier modern dance companies. In its 50-year history, Ailey has performed for an estimated 21 million people in 71 countries on six continents. The troupe's signature work, ``Revelations,'' has been seen by more people across the globe than any other work of dance. Alvin Ailey was born into an impoverished childhood in the small, segregated town of Rogers, Texas. Dedicated to promoting the uniqueness of the African-American cultural experience, Ailey began offering opportunities to black dancers when there were few. ``Revelations,'' which draws upon the influences of black spirituals, gospel music, and blues, epitomizes the universality of art that Ailey sought to explore. Of this groundbreaking work, he said: ``Its roots are in American Negro culture, which is part of the whole country's heritage. The dance speaks to everyone.'' By 1963, the troupe had begun welcoming dancers of diverse ethnicities and backgrounds, and translating their experiences into some of the most riveting works of dance of the 20th century. The company now performs works by a wide range of choreographers, both emerging and established, from across the globe, totaling more than 200 works by over 70 choreographers. In 1982, Alvin Ailey received the United Nations Peace Medal, and in 2001, President George W. Bush recognized the Ailey and Artistic Director Judith Jamison with the National Medal of Arts, making the Ailey the first dance company to be honored with this award. Ailey continues to make a lasting impact in the dance world through its arts in education and community programs, which provide more than 100,000 young people from diverse cultural, social, and economic backgrounds the opportunity to explore their creative potential, not only in New York, but in cities throughout the United States. Ailey II, the junior company, reaches more than 69,000 people each year, and brings its inspiring performances to smaller communities across North America. I am proud that Ailey calls my congressional district in New York City home, and has made the Joan Weill Center for Dance the largest facility dedicated exclusively to dance in the United States. I wish to thank Ailey for all it has done to break cultural barriers through the arts. I especially want to thank Judith Jamison, Artistic Director, and Sharon Gersten Luckman, Executive Director, who keep Alvin Ailey's artistic and social vision alive today. I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution congratulating the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater for its 50 years as a cultural ambassador to the world, and thanking them for their outstanding service to future generations of artists.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished majority leader and gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for their leadership on this important legislation. H.R. 3195 would help to restore the Americans with Disabilities Act to its rightful place among this Nation's great civil rights laws. This legislation is necessary to correct Supreme Court decisions that have created an absurd catch-22 in which an individual can face discrimination on the basis of an actual, past, or perceived disability and yet not be considered sufficiently disabled to be protected against that discrimination by the ADA. That was never Congress's intent, and H.R. 3195 cures this problem. H.R. 3195 lowers the burden of proving that one is disabled enough to qualify for coverage. It does this by directing courts to read the definition broadly, as is appropriate for remedial civil rights legislation. It also redefines the term ``substantially limits,'' which was restrictively interpreted by the courts to set a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled. An individual now must show that his or her impairment ``materially restricts'' performance of major life activities. While the impact of the impairment must still be important, it need not severely or significantly restrict one's ability to engage in those activities central to most people's daily lives, including working. Under this new standard, for example, it should be considered a material restriction if an individual is disqualified from his or her job of choice because of an impairment. An individual should not need to prove that he or she is unable to perform a broad class or range of jobs. We fully expect that the courts, and the federal agencies providing expert guidance, will revisit prior rulings and guidance and adjust the burden of proving the requisite ``material'' limitation to qualify for coverage. This legislation is long overdue. Countless Americans with disabilities have already been deprived of the opportunity to prove that they have been victims of discrimination, that they are qualified for a job, or that a reasonable accommodation would afford them an opportunity to participate fully at work and in community life. Some of my colleagues from across the aisle have raised concerns that this bill would cover ``minor'' or ``trivial'' conditions. They worry about covering ``stomach aches, the common cold, mild seasonal allergies, or even a hangnail.'' I have yet to see a case where the ADA covered an individual with a hangnail. But I have seen scores of cases where the ADA was construed not to cover individuals with cancer, epilepsy, diabetes, severe intellectual impairment, HIV, muscular dystrophy, and multiple sclerosis. These people have too often been excluded because their impairment, however serious or debilitating, was mis-characterized by the courts as temporary, or its impact considered too short-lived and not permanent enough--although it was serious enough to cost them the job. That's what happened to Mary Ann Pimental, a nurse who was diagnosed with breast cancer after being promoted at her job. Mrs. Pimental had a mastectomy and underwent chemotherapy and radiation therapy. She suffered radiation burns and premature menopause. She had difficulty concentrating, and experienced extreme fatigue and shortness of breath. And when she felt well enough to return to work, she discovered that her job was gone and the only position available for her was part-time, with reduced benefits. When Ms. Pimental challenged her employer's failure to rehire her into a better position, the court told her that her breast cancer was not a disability and that she was not covered by the ADA. The court recognized the ``terrible effect the cancer had upon'' her and even said that ``there is no question that her cancer has dramatically affected her life, and that the associated impairment has been real and extraordinarily difficult for her and her family.'' Yet the court still denied her coverage under the ADA because it characterized the impact of her cancer as ``short-lived''--meaning that it ``did not have a substantial and lasting effect'' on her. Mary Ann Pimental died as a result of her breast cancer 4 months after the court issued its decision. I am sure that her husband and two children disagree with the court's characterization of her cancer as ``short-lived,'' and not sufficiently permanent. This House should also disagree--and does--as is shown by the broad bipartisan support for H.R. 3195. H.R. 3195 ensures that individuals like Mary Ann Pimental are covered by the law when they need it. It directs the courts to interpret the definition of disability broadly, as is appropriate for remedial civil rights to legislation. H.R. 3195 requires the courts--and the federal agencies providing expert guidance--to lower the burden for obtaining coverage under this landmark civil rights law. This new standard is not onerous, and is meant to reduce needless litigation over the threshold question of coverage. It is our sincere hope that, with less battling over who is or is not disabled, we will finally be able to focus on the important questions-- is an individual qualified? And might a reasonable accommodation afford that person the same opportunities that his or her neighbors enjoy. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for passage of H.R. 3195, as reported unanimously by the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished majority leader and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) as well as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee for their leadership on this important legislation. This bill would help to restore the Americans with Disabilities Act to its rightful place among this Nation's great civil rights laws. This legislation is long overdue. Countless Americans with disabilities have already been deprived of the opportunity to prove that they have been victims of discrimination, that they are qualified for a job, or that a reasonable accommodation would afford them an opportunity to participate fully at work and in community life. This bill fixes the absurd Catch-22 created by the Supreme Court in which an individual can face discrimination on the basis of an actual past or perceived disability and yet not be considered sufficiently disabled to be protected against that discrimination by the ADA. That was never Congress' intent, and this bill cures this problem. Some of my colleagues from across the aisle have raised concerns that this bill might cover minor or trivial conditions. They worry about covering stomachaches, the common cold, mild seasonal allergies, or even a hangnail. I have yet to see a case where the ADA covered an individual with a hangnail. But I have seen scores of cases where the ADA was construed not to cover individuals with cancer, epilepsy, diabetes, severe intellectual impairment, HIV, muscular dystrophy, and multiple sclerosis. These people have too often been excluded because their impairment, however serious or debilitating, was mischaracterized by the courts as temporary or its impact considered too short-lived and not permanent enough. That's what happened to Mary Ann Pimental, a nurse with breast cancer who challenged her employer's failure to rehire her into her position when she returned from treatment. Ms. Pimental was told by the court that her cancer was not a disability and that she was not covered by the ADA. The court recognized that ``there is no question that her cancer has dramatically affected her life, and that the associated impairment has been real and extraordinarily difficult for her and her family.'' Yet the court still denied her coverage because it characterized the impact of her cancer ``short-lived''--meaning that it ``did not have a substantial lasting effect'' on her. Mary Ann Pimental died as a result of her breast cancer 4 months after the court issued its decision. I am sure that her husband and two children disagreed with the court that her cancer was short-lived and not sufficiently permanent. This bill ensures that individuals like Mary Ann Pimental are covered by the law when they need it. The bill requires the courts--and the Federal agencies providing expert guidance--to lower the burden for obtaining coverage under this landmark civil rights law. This new standard is not onerous and is meant to reduce needless litigation over the threshold question of coverage. It is our sincere hope that, with the passage of this bill, we will finally be able to focus on the important questions: Is an individual qualified? Might a reasonable accommodation afford that person the same opportunities that his or her neighbors enjoy? I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in voting for passage of H.R. 3195 as reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. I thank everyone associated with its passage. Madam Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished majority leader and gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for their leadership on this important legislation. H.R. 3195 would help to restore the Americans with Disabilities Act to its rightful place among this Nation's great civil rights laws. This legislation is necessary to correct Supreme Court decisions that have created an absurd Catch-22 in which an individual can face discrimination on the basis of an actual, past, or perceived disability and yet not be considered sufficiently disabled to be protected against that discrimination by the ADA. That was never Congress's intent, and H.R. 3195 cures this problem. H.R. 3195 lowers the burden of proving that one is disabled enough to qualify for coverage. It does this by directing courts to read the definition broadly, as is appropriate for remedial civil rights legislation. It also redefines the term ``substantially limits,'' which was restrictively interpreted by the courts to set a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled. An individual now must show that his or her impairment ``materially restricts'' performance of major life activities. While the impact of the impairment must still be important, it need not severely or significantly restrict one's ability to engage in those activities central to most people's daily lives, including working. Under this new standard, for example, it should be considered a material restriction if an individual is disqualified from his or her job of choice because of an impairment. An individual should not need to prove that he or she is unable to perform a broad class or range of jobs. We fully expect that the courts, and the Federal agencies providing expert guidance, will revisit prior rulings and guidance and adjust the burden of proving the requisite ``material'' limitation to qualify for coverage. This legislation is long overdue. Countless Americans with disabilities have already been deprived of the opportunity to prove that they have been victims of discrimination, that they are qualified for a job, or that a reasonable accommodation would afford them an opportunity to participate fully at work and in community life. Some of my colleagues from across the aisle have raised concerns that this bill would cover ``minor'' or ``trivial'' conditions. They worry about covering ``stomach aches, the common cold, mild seasonal allergies, or even a hangnail.'' I have yet to see a case where the ADA covered an individual with a hangnail. But I have seen scores of cases where the ADA was construed not to cover individuals with cancer, epilepsy, diabetes, severe intellectual impairment, HIV, muscular dystrophy, and multiple sclerosis. These people have too often been excluded because their impairment, however serious or debilitating, was mis-characterized by the courts as temporary, or its impact considered too short-lived and not permanent enough--although it was serious enough to cost them the job. That's what happened to Mary Ann Pimental, a nurse who was diagnosed with breast cancer after being promoted at her job. Mrs. Pimental had a mastectomy and underwent chemotherapy and radiation therapy. She suffered radiation burns and premature menopause. She had difficulty concentrating, and experienced extreme fatigue and shortness of breath. And when she felt well enough to return to work, she discovered that her job was gone and the only position available for her was part-time, with reduced benefits. When Ms. Pimental challenged her employer's failure to rehire her into a better position, the court told her that her breast cancer was not a disability and that she was not covered by the ADA. The court recognized the ``terrible effect the cancer had upon'' her and even said that ``there is no question that her cancer has dramatically affected her life, and that the associated impairment has been real and extraordinarily difficult for her and her family.'' Yet the court still denied her coverage under the ADA because it characterized the impact of her cancer as ``short-lived''--meaning that it ``did not have a substantial and lasting effect'' on her. Mary Ann Pimental died as a result of her breast cancer 4 months after the court issued its decision. I am sure that her husband and two children disagree with the court's characterization of her cancer as ``short-lived,'' and not sufficiently permanent. This House should also disagree--and does--as is shown by the broad bipartisan support for H.R. 3195. H.R. 3195 ensures that individuals like Mary Ann Pimental are covered by the law when they need it. It directs the courts to interpret the definition of disability broadly, as is appropriate for remedial civil rights legislation. H.R. 3195 requires the courts--and the Federal agencies providing expert guidance--to lower the burden for obtaining coverage under this landmark civil rights law. This new standard is not onerous, and is meant to reduce needless litigation over the threshold question of coverage. It is our sincere hope that, with less battling over who is or is not disabled, we will finally be able to focus on the important questions-- is an individual qualified? And might a reasonable accommodation afford that person the same opportunities that his or her neighbors enjoy. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for passage of H.R. 3195, as reported unanimously by the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise it support of this legislation which is a simple measure the House can take to help protect our troops from undue financial hardship. We constantly receive stern lectures about the importance of supporting the troops. But supporting the troops is more than just wearing a flag pin, or sticking a yellow ribbon on your car, or impugning the patriotism of your political opponents. Supporting the troops should entail some real benefit for those troops when they need our help. As President Lincoln put it so well, to ``care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.'' Perhaps taking proper care of the wounded at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, or providing them with suitable armor, or providing them with assistance after they return home would be a good place to start. Here we have the opportunity to help a small number of veterans, estimated at 2,000 to 2,500, by lifting what amounts to a costly and burdensome paperwork burden. According to the Republican witness in the Judiciary Committee, this bill is ``targeted, specific, and quite modest.'' Will it allow these veterans to commit fraud? No. Creditors, the courts, the trustees, and the Department of Justice have ample tools at their disposal to deal with anyone trying to game the system. The case can still be dismissed for abuse based on the totality of the circumstances, the court can still deny or revoke the debtor's discharge of debts, the military could revoke the debtor's security clearance, and the criminal code provides for fines and imprisonment of up to five years. The means test is not stopping fraud. The Bush Justice Department, which administers it, has reported that less than half a percent of all cases are dismissed based on the means test. The form used to implement the means test has 57 separate sections. It takes a pro se debtor approximately 10 to 12 hours, and it rivals IRS form 1040 in complexity. I challenge my colleagues to fill it out. So today members have real choice. You can vote to support the troops or you can vote to support the big banks. It is a pretty clear choice. I urge my colleagues to support the troops.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, Members of the House must decide today whether to uphold the rule of low and the supremacy of the Constitution or whether to protect and reward the lawless behavior of the administration and of the telecommunications companies that participated in its clearly illegal program of spying on innocent Americans. This bill limits the courts hearing lawsuits alleging illegal wiretapping to consider only whether the telecom companies received a ``written request or directive . . . indicating that the activity was [ ] authorized by the President; and [ ] determined to be lawful''--not whether the request was actually lawful or whether the telecom companies knew that it was unlawful. The bill is a fig-leaf, granting blanket immunity to the telecom companies for illegal acts without allowing the courts to consider the facts or the law. It denies people whose rights were violated their fair day in court, and it denies the American people their right to have the actions of the administration subjected to fair and independent scrutiny. Even the courts' limited review will remain secret. The lawsuits will be dismissed, but the basis for the dismissal--that the defendants were innocent of misconduct, or that they were guilty but Congress commands their immunity--must remain secret. And the constitutionality of the immunity granted by this bill is very questionable. As Judge Walker put it in the AT&T case: AT&T's alleged actions here violate the constitutional rights clearly established in [the] Keith decision. Moreover, because `the very action in question has previously been held unlawful,' AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal. I would hope that the courts will find that, because the Constitutional rights of Americans have been violated, Congress' attempt to prevent court review is unconstitutional. The bill also reiterates than FISA and specified other statutes are the exclusive legal authority for electronic surveillance. The Act has always said that. This bill adds some new mechanisms to ensure that any future legislation may not be read to override this exclusivity by implication, but only by explicitly saying that that is its purpose. No one and no court should draw the false conclusion that we are thereby implying that the exclusivity provision was, or could have been, overridden either by the President's claim of inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution, or by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force of 2001. This bill does not say or imply that. If there is any doubt of this point, the blanket immunity provisions of this bill reflect Congress' understanding that this domestic spying was not legal. If it were, there would not be any necessity for these provisions. This bill abandons the Constitution's protections and insulates lawless behavior from legal scrutiny. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, in order to uphold the principle of the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution, we must reject this bill. This bill limits the courts hearing lawsuits alleging illegal wiretapping, to considering only whether the telecom companies received a ``written request or directive indicating that the activity was authorized by the President and determined to be lawful,'' not whether that request was actually lawful or that telecom companies knew that it was unlawful. The bill is a fig leaf granting blanket immunity to the telecom companies for possibly illegal acts without allowing the courts to consider the facts or the law. It denies people whose rights are violated their fair day in court, and it denies the American people the right to have the actions of this administration subjected to fair and independent scrutiny. Even the court's limited review will remain secret. The lawsuits will be dismissed, but the basis for that dismissal that the defendants were innocent of misconduct or that they were guilty, but that Congress commands their immunity, must remain secret. The constitutionality of the immunity granted by this bill is very questionable. As Judge Walker put it in the AT&T case, ``AT&T's alleged actions here violate the constitutional rights clearly established in the Keith decision. Moreover, because the very action in question has previously been held unlawful, AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal.'' I would hope that the courts will find that because the constitutional rights of Americans have been violated, Congress' attempt to prevent court review is unconstitutional. I regret we may today abandon the Constitution's protections and insulate lawless behavior from legal scrutiny. I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this bill to reauthorize Amtrak, create a State grant program for intercity passenger rail, and invest in high-speed rail corridors. I want to thank the chairman, Jim Oberstar, and Corrine Brown and Ranking Members Mica and Shuster for moving this bill, which is long overdue. For years, Amtrak has been underfunded and threatened with bankruptcy. For the last several years, Amtrak has received just enough money to maintain its system while many critical capital improvements have had to be postponed. As of 2005, Amtrak had a backlog of $4.2 billion in capital investments, which rises to $6 billion if you include the necessary bridge and tunnel improvements. Even with adequate funding, it will probably take 10 years to complete the work to bring the system into a state of good repair. We cannot afford to play catchup with our rail transportation system, certainly not as gas prices continue to skyrocket. We have to look for ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to combat global warming. We should be shifting people from cars and airplanes onto rail. This bill is also of particular benefit to the Northeast and to New York. In addition to the investments in the Northeast Corridor, the bill authorizes $2.5 billion for a new State capital grant program for intercity passenger rail projects. I am particularly thankful to the committee for structuring this program so that projects such as the Moynihan Station project in New York City are eligible to apply for these grants. Penn Station in my district is the largest station in the passenger rail network and is the hub of the Northeast Corridor. It is basically at capacity. If we are to increase rail traffic, we have to look beyond just the track space between cities to improving the stations at the end of the line. I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar for working with us to ensure that the language was written in such a way that projects like Moynihan Station are eligible. Investing in high-speed rail is an urgent issue. We must accelerate investment in our rail infrastructure. This bill finally starts to authorize rail investments at an adequate level. It makes eminent sense as part of a rational energy and transportation policy. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. I thank again the chairman and the ranking member.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the New York County Lawyers' Association (NYCLA) which is celebrating 100 years of hard work and dedication in providing services to the legal profession and the public of New York City. The New York County Lawyers' Association was founded one hundred years ago for the purpose of combating systemic exclusion of lawyers from bar membership on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity and sex. In the past century, the Association has grown to 10,000 members, earning national prestige for its commitment to promoting the public interest. The NYCLA has continuously pursued the administration of justice through reforms in the law, by elevating standards of integrity and professionalism in the legal field, and by providing free legal services for those in need. Over its long history, the NYCLA has sponsored countless initiatives that have contributed to the improvement of New York's justice system. The Association has played a major role in the reduction of court congestion, the rehabilitation of delinquent children, the implementation of anti-discriminatory provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, and the attainment of higher compensation for attorneys representing the indigent. NYCLA has also issued many highly influential reports and resolutions to call attention to shortages of our legal system. These include calling for measures to reduce false confessions in criminal trials, ensuring right to counsel for residential tenants in Housing Court who cannot afford representation, and securing just compensation for judges. The Association further offers a variety of meaningful Pro Bono Projects that provide counseling and representation to the low-income, indigent and other persons in need. Included among these are projects that provide assistance to lay guardians with low assets, basic estate-planning documents to low-income persons, and counseling in the areas of family, employment, consumer bankruptcy and landlord/tenant law. Consistently, the Association has worked to meet the changing needs of legal practice in the 21st century. The Association's highly acclaimed Continuing Legal Education Institute offers attorneys a variety of educational programs. NYCLA also facilitates public awareness and education on a wide array of issues through its forums and lecture series. Today I rise to recognize and congratulate The New York County Lawyers' Association for 100 years of outstanding and dedicated service to the people of New York and for its groundbreaking work in furthering the administration of justice.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Dr. Barbara Warren who is celebrating 20 years of service, dedication and hard work at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Center in New York City. Dr. Warren joined the staff of the center in 1988 as a psychologist and only healthcare professional within the staff of six. Today, the Center has a staff of nearly 80 with a third of those in service to health programs created under her leadership. Dr. Warren is one of the greatest resources to be found at the Center, a font of information and a tireless worker for the LGBT Community and all New Yorkers. Dr. Warren has created numerous health programs, many the first of their kind, which now serve as examples both nationally and internationally. This array of programs include programs concerning HIV/AIDS, Crystal Meth, Bereavement, Alcohol, Substance and Tobacco Abuse, the Lesbian Cancer Initiative, the Gender Identity Project and the new Center CARE Recovery. Center CARE Recovery is the first licensed, outpatient LGBT-specific alcohol and substance abuse recovery program in New York State. Additionally, Dr. Warren created the Center Youth Program, Youth Enrichment Services (YES), 18 years ago, the first LGBT Youth program in the country, which has grown today to serve countless youth from all over the New York Metro area. Barbara has been active for many years in helping to secure critically important funding for LGBT social service programs through the New York State Network of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health and Human Services Providers, the National Association of LGBT Community Centers and the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association, and is also a Faculty Member at the New York State Academy of Addiction Studies and at the graduate programs of Fordham University, Hunter College, Columbia University and Yeshiva University. Dr. Warren was the principal writer of the official state-sponsored (NYS Office of Alcohol and Substance Abuse Service's Training for Counselors) training curriculum, which addresses sensitivity to LGBT- specific needs. Today I rise to recognize and congratulate Dr. Barbara Warren for 20 years of outstanding and dedicated service to the people of New York and for her groundbreaking work in the field of LGBT Social Services which has set the standard for such programs both nationally and internationally.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of New York Artists Equity Association (NYAEA), now celebrating its 60th anniversary. NYAEA's advocacy for legislation on behalf of visual artists is matched only by its dedication to the development of the visual arts in our communities, placing the New York artistic world in the context of the larger society, as a necessary component that enriches all of our lives. Significantly, the Association promotes emerging American and international artists in its Broome Street Gallery. In 2006, the organization established the Jacob and Gwendolyn Lawrence Awards Fund, which finances solo exhibitions for emerging and under-recognized artists. I had the pleasure of meeting Jacob Lawrence, a renowned artist and past president of NYAEA at their 50th anniversary celebration, when Al Hirschfeld honored me by putting both of us in one of his drawings. Madam Speaker, I particularly commend NYAEA, under the leadership of its Executive Director, Regina Stewart, for supporting visual artists at a time when they receive no help from the government. The Association provides referrals, legal services, and health care to visual artists in need, helping to ensure economic stability for those artists who might otherwise be forced to abandon their talents due to economic difficulties. New York Artists Equity Association works to preserve endangered visual art work, helping to assure the survival of our rich artistic past. I am proud that NYAEA is in my Congressional District, and that its work reaches far beyond my District to help visual artists in the larger community. I wish to thank the Association for all it has done to advocate for the visual arts, and I also want to thank one of the Association's Past Vice Presidents, Doris Wyman, who serves on my Arts Advisory Committee, for her tireless advocacy. Because of my on-going work with this fine organization and their leadership, I know of their constant efforts and I commend them. For 60 years, NYAEA has been a passionate advocate for visual artists. I salute New York Artists Equity Association for helping to assure a stable artistic community--one that is, and always must be, recognized as vital to our heritage and culture.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the lifelong work of a true fighter for civil liberties and civil rights, Marvin Johnson. Sadly, Marv passed away on March 21, after a long battle with complications from diabetes. It is a personal loss to those who knew him as a friend and colleague, and a loss to the many Americans who will never know how tirelessly he fought for their rights, sometimes against great odds, and often for the truly unpopular cause. At the time of his passing, Marv was the first amendment counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington Legislative Office, a position he held for 8 years. During that time, he led many of the fights to protect the first amendment and our fundamental freedoms. He fought to ensure that all Americans enjoyed their freedom of expression, not only in print or in the public square, but also in ways that the framers never could have imagined--on television or on the internet. Marv also wrote two reports detailing the dangers of domestic spying by Federal law enforcement, including an examination of the tactics used by our Government against Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As we now struggle to regain these precious constitutional rights, Marv's work has become even more important. As Marv wrote, ``American citizens must once again be confident they may exercise their constitutionally protected right to protest government policy without becoming targets of government scrutiny.'' Marv was also an outstanding resource. His vast knowledge and sound judgment were always ready to aid us in our work. As the Chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, I always valued Marv's views, even on those occasions where we disagreed. Prior to his time in Washington, Marv was the Executive Director of the ACLU of Wyoming and before that, he was its board chair. During his tenure as executive director a notorious hate crime was committed against a young gay man, Matthew Sheppard. That vicious murder is now infamous. Marv Johnson led the Wyoming LGBT and civil liberties communities during that difficult time. Marv also successfully resolved numerous first amendment cases in Wyoming, and he has a long list of legislative accomplishments. Before his time at the ACLU of Wyoming, Marv worked as an attorney in private practice. He also served in the Air Force as a Judge Advocate General, including two years as the Chief of Military Justice for F.E. Warren Air Force Base. Marv Johnson is survived by his wife Billie Ruth Edwards, who has also devoted her life to fighting for civil liberties. My deepest sympathies go out to her. Madam Speaker, those of us who had the privilege of knowing Marv Johnson and working with him will remember his dedication to justice and human rights, his legal and political acumen, and his capacity for hard work. We will also remember his personal decency and good humor which seemed always there just when we needed it most. America is a better Nation because people like Marv are willing to fight for what is right even when that is profoundly unpopular. He enriched the lives of those who knew him. We will all miss his sharp wit and deep-rooted passion for liberty and freedom. I can think of no better way to remember and honor him than to continue his work with the same fearless passion he brought to everything he did.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bipartisan House Leadership Resolution, H. Con. Res. 322, of which I am a cosponsor, to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel. In 1947, the year I was born, the area now known as Israel was about to go through a birth of its own. In 1948, with the founding of the only Jewish state to ever exist in history, Jews found that their new homeland was filled with sand and little water, but it was also filled with great hope and resolve. Following the murder of 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, this small country would soon become a homeland for another 6 million Jews, free to practice Judaism, but still targeted for their faith. While Israel was formed, Jews all over the Middle East were facing a crisis of their own; Jewish refugees in Arab lands were expelled systematically, under an official regime policy which included anti- Jewish decrees, pogroms, murders and hangings, anti-Semitic incitement and ethnic cleansing. The Arab League's 1947 decree provided a formula for state-sanctioned discriminatory measures, replicated in many Arab countries, in a deliberate campaign to expel the Jewish refugees from their home countries. Unlike the Palestinians, the Jewish refugees were absorbed into their new host countries, mostly by Israel. About 600,000 stayed in Israel and the remaining 300,000 fled to other countries, such as France, Canada, Italy, and the United States. In Israel today, the Jewish refugees from Arab countries and their children comprise the majority of the Jewish population. This House recently adopted my resolution, H. Res. 185, urging that the rights of Jewish refugees be recognized in any future comprehensive Middle East settlement. We are continually working to ensure that any Middle East peace agreement is just, fully just to all parties. This is a continual process. From its first day, Israel has fought for its right to exist when it was attacked by its Arab neighbors. Since then, continuous wars have been waged, all aiming to destroy the Jewish state and its people. At times, mothers and fathers have had to buy gas masks for their children; young children have had to celebrate their birthdays in bomb shelters. Despite this, families have shared laughter on the beaches of the Mediterranean; young couples have danced on the rooftops of Jerusalem. That all of these times have been simultaneous is a testament to the strength and determination for not only the State of Israel, but for humanity. Following their independence, Israel's people, driven to immigrate for fear of persecution and for their ideological dreams, struggled with basic life, rationing food and living in makeshift shelters. The early immigrants began building the land, irrigating, planting, and educating their children. Working in the sun, Israel's wrinkles began to show the stress, but the outcome can be seen today; flowers and olive trees on the hillsides and universities at full capacity. In cooperation with the United States and other countries, innovations by Israelis in science, energy, agriculture, technology, and medicine have been felt around the world. Today, the country is flowing with milk and honey, as a nation of immigrants and a home for the persecuted. But it is also facing much hardship. Like the United States, Israel was founded by immigrants escaping persecution and wanting to live in peace. But while Israel remains a sanctuary for Judaism, it remains a dangerous place to be a Jew. In its 60th year, Israel faces some of its greatest challenges and needs its allies and friends more than ever. The Middle East is still a very dangerous place, and scapegoating Israel is still a very convenient means of holding power for some very dangerous autocrats. Such tactics are deplorable, and we must do everything we can to stop them. While some Arab states have been working with us to respond to Iran's vicious lies and rhetoric, we must also continue to demand that Israel, our democratic ally, be recognized by these very states. And we must call for the immediate and unconditional release of Israeli soldiers kidnapped and held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah, which is called for by H. Res. 107, a bill I cosponsored. Indeed, Israel is now at a critical crossroads. We hope for the best, but we remain mindful that peace cannot be achieved unless sincere and substantive acts are forthcoming from the Palestinians. Terror must come to an end, as must incitement. At middle age, and I speak of personal experience, as I am also marking my 60th year, one must take stock of their past and look forward to the future. The Israeli State and its people continue to work to preserve its foundation as a Jewish state with Jewish values, while they live in a region where the very idea of the existence of a Jewish state continues to be challenged. As Israel looks toward the future, integrating its immigrants, expanding its economy, preserving its heritage, and providing foreign assistance and refuge to Jews throughout the world, the United States will stand alongside her in her quest for peace and prosperity. We hope to learn from each other; Israel continues to fight terror alongside the United States and stands as an example of how to balance civil liberties and security, religious freedom and the expression of religious values in its economic and political structure. Like the United States, the Jewish democratic State has a robust freedom of press that serves to teach the public and government how to better itself, and an independent judiciary which seeks to preserve the liberties for which it has fought. The relationship the United States has with Israel is special; we have more in common than we do apart, and we continue to work in cooperation to achieve the broader goals of a peaceful future for our children and grandchildren. As we grow together as democratic nations facing challenging times, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution acknowledging the special bonds of friendship the United States shares with our only democratic ally in the Middle East, Israel. I thank our leadership for sponsoring this resolution and I strongly urge its passage.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution which I introduced, along with Representatives Ros-Lehtinen, Crowley and Ferguson. I am proud to stand alongside of them, as well as Chairman Berman and Representative Ackerman, who have been strong leaders on the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab lands, in this historic moment of recognition of these refugees. I would also like to take a moment to commend the leadership of our late chairman, Tom Lantos, whose leadership on this issue and on all human rights issues has been critical to opening this debate and to recognizing the rights of refugees throughout the world. This resolution is not just about a forgotten chapter of history. For centuries, long before the advent of Islam and long after it, Jewish communities lived peacefully and often prosperously and productively in Arab lands among Arab people. Their forced relocation and the material value they lost when they were compelled to abandon their homes and other properties in Arab countries has never been redressed. For example, in Iraq, a community of 150,000 in 1948 dwindles to around 10 today. In Egypt, a community of 75,000 in 1945 became between 50 and 100 today. In Yemen and Aden, 63,000 in 1948 became 200 in 2003. 140,000 Jews lived in Tunisia in 1948, less than 100 remained in 2004. In Morocco, which is hailed today as a bastion of Jewish-Arab coexistence in the Arab world, a thriving community of more than a quarter million Jews lived their lives in peace by 1948; by 2003, only 5,500 remained. Some left willingly, most did not. While the plight of Palestinian refugees is well known throughout the world and has been a major element in every Arab-Israeli peace plan and negotiation, the plight of these Jewish refugees is rarely mentioned these days. Nevertheless, numerous international agreements pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict have been codified with the rights of the Jewish refugees in mind. U.N. Security Council resolution 242, passed on November 22, 1967, after the Six Day War, calls for a just settlement to the refugee problem without limiting that problem to Palestinians. In fact, the Soviet Union tried to limit that resolution to Palestinians and it was rejected. Presidents Carter and Clinton stated explicitly that the issue of Jewish refugees must be a part of any comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace agreement. And lest there be any doubt about this status, the U.N. High Commission on Refugees in 1957 ruled that Jewish people that fled Arab countries were, indeed, ``refugees.'' This principle is reaffirmed in the Camp David Accords and in the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty. The treaty states, ``The parties agree to establish a Claims Committee for the mutual settlement of all financial claims.'' And it also states, ``Jewish refugees have the same rights as others do.'' These Jewish refugees, Madam Speaker, were expelled systematically under official regime policies, which included state-fostered anti- Jewish decrees, pogroms, murders and hangings, anti-Semitic incitement and ethnic cleansing. They were done in accordance with an Arab League 1947 decree that provided a formula to promote state-sanctioned discriminatory measures that were replicated in many Arab countries in a deliberate campaign to expel the entire Jewish population from their home countries. And unlike the Palestinians, the Jewish refugees, having been expelled from the Arab countries, were absorbed into their host countries, mostly by Israel. About 600,000 refugees went to Israel, and the remaining 300,000 fled to other countries, such as France, Canada, Italy and the United States. In Israel today, the majority of the population consists of Jews from Arab countries and their children and grandchildren. The right of Jewish refugees from Middle Eastern lands to seek redress does not in any way conflict with the rights of Palestinian refugees to seek redress, and resolution states this explicitly. This resolution merely expresses the sense of Congress that Jewish refugees, many of whom were so effectively absorbed by the State of Israel, should not be denied their legitimate rights and compensation for the property of which they were deprived. The resolution further states that a comprehensive Middle East peace agreement can be credible and enduring only if it achieves legitimate rights of all refugees, ``including Jews, Christians and other populations'' displaced from Middle East countries. Importantly, it also resolves that the President should instruct the U.S. Representative at the U.N. and all U.S. representatives in bilateral and multilateral fora to use their voice, their vote and the influence of the United States to ensure that any resolutions relating to the issue of Middle East refugees which include a reference to the required resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue must also include a similarly explicit reference to the resolution of the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, and to make clear that the United States Government supports the position that as an integral part of any comprehensive and much to be desired Arab-Israeli peace, the issue of refugees from the Middle East, north Africa and the Persian Gulf must be resolved in a manner that includes recognition of the legitimate rights of and losses incurred by all refugees displaced from Arab countries, including Jews, Christians and other groups. There is broad bipartisan support for this resolution, which was passed with unanimous consent from the Foreign Affairs Committee. Many Jewish groups have endorsed the resolution, including the American Jewish Committee, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Hadassah, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Orthodox Union, among others. I must particularly acknowledge the work of B'nai B'rith International and the strong leadership of Justice for Jews from Arab Countries, which has led the International Rights and Redress Campaign. As of September 2007, this coalition to secure the rights of Jewish refugees from Arab lands includes 72 organizations and 20 countries. It is important to deal with this issue now while some of the original refugees are still alive. Justice for Jews from Arab Countries has organized a campaign to conduct public education programs on the heritage and rights of former Jewish refugees from Arab countries, to register family history narratives, and to catalogue communal and individual losses suffered by Jews who fled from Arab countries. By adopting this resolution and urging that the rights of Jewish refugees be recognized in any future comprehensive Middle East settlement, we are simply seeking to ensure that any such agreement is just, fully just to all parties. As a member of the Quartet, and in light of the United States' central and indispensable role in promoting a just Middle East peace, the U.S. must reaffirm that it embraces a just and comprehensive approach to the issue of Middle East refugees. I urge strong report for this resolution.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1312, the Arts Require Timely Service Act, or the ARTS Act, and I thank Congressman Berman and Chairman Conyers for their leadership on this important issue. Under immigration law, foreign artists or groups must obtain a visa in order to perform in America. However, over the last few years, this process has been severely delayed, leading some nonprofits to stop planning events that include foreign artists altogether. These delays not only impact the immediate availability of foreign artists to perform alongside American artists, but also threaten to impede the ability of U.S. artists to perform abroad. The ARTS Act would address these delays by requiring the Government to expedite--without any additional fees--visas for foreign artists that are not processed within 30 days of filing, if the visa petition is filed on behalf of a qualified nonprofit organization. The ARTS Act will help end the delays and uncertainties in the processing of visa petitions for foreign guest artists coming to the United States. America is a great land of opportunity for artists, and in my district, this is particularly true. New York City prides itself as being an international center for the arts, yet the current system is failing it. It is becoming increasingly difficult for too many foreign artists to come to America to perform. Foreign artists bring to America their own unique artistic abilities, and every time they are essentially prevented from performing in America, we do a disservice to the arts and to ourselves.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3773, the FISA Amendments Act. This carefully crafted legislation gives our intelligence agencies all the tools they need to protect our country, while protecting our fundamental civil liberties. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what this legislation does not do. It does not require individual warrants for the targeting of foreign terrorists located outside the United States. For three decades, that has been the law, and it will still be the law under this bill. There is no dispute about this. The bill starts with the recognition that the intelligence community needs to surveil all members of a terrorist group--once that group is identified. Any suggestion that it requires individualized warrants to intercept communications of terrorists overseas is wrong. The bill maintains the traditional requirement of a warrant when our intelligence agencies seek to conduct surveillance on Americans. And because some foreign surveillance may record conversations with Americans, the bill requires that, when the Government proposes to undertake surveillance of a foreign group or entity, it must first apply to the FISA court, except that, in an emergency, the surveillance can begin immediately, and the court can consider the surveillance procedures later. In both this bill and the Senate bill, the Government has to inform the court of the procedures it will use to ensure that it is targeting only foreigners overseas and how it will ``minimize'' domestic information it might inadvertently pick up. The only real difference is that the Senate bill lets them listen first, then go to the court within 5 days. This bill requires that they go to the FISA Court first. But in an emergency, we give them 7 days to listen before they go to the court. So will someone please tell me how this minor difference between the bills somehow gives rights to terrorists? There is one thing that this bill does not do, and this great body must not do--provide blanket, retroactive immunity to the telecommunication companies that assisted in the President's warrantless wiretapping program. Such a move would fly in the face of our notions of justice. Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks, we have heard countless assertions from our colleagues on the other side that are false and misleading. They claim that we allowed the Protect America Act to expire--when it was the Republicans who blocked attempts to extend that legislation temporarily. And they continue to claim that retroactive immunity for the telecom companies is necessary for the security of the country. But they have failed to provide any evidence for that claim. The telecom companies aided the Administration's surveillance program. Some people--American citizens--believe their constitutional rights were violated, and brought suit against the government and the telecom companies. There are two narratives here. One is that the telecom companies patriotically aided the Administration in protecting Americans from terrorists. The other is that the telecom companies conspired with a lawless Administration to violate the Constitutional rights of Americans. Which of these narratives is correct is for a court to decide. It is not the role of Congress to decide legal cases between private parties. That is why we have courts. If the claims are not meritorious, the courts will throw them out. But if the claims do have merit, we have no right to dismiss them without even reviewing the evidence. We are told that the telecom companies should not be subject to lawsuits for doing their duty. But whether they were doing their duty, or abusing the rights of Americans, is precisely the issue. And that is a legal issue for the courts to decide. In any event, the existing law, in a wise balance of national security and constitutional rights that this bill does not change, already provides absolute immunity to the telecom companies if their help was requested, and if they were given a statement by the Attorney General, or various other government officials, stating that the requested help did not require a warrant or court order and would not break the law. They have immunity whether those statements were true or not. They can rely absolutely on the government's assertions. So why do they think they need retroactive immunity? Because of the Administration's sweeping assertion of the ``state secrets'' doctrine, which has prevented the companies from claiming their immunity. Title II of this bill will allow the telecoms to show the courts, in a secure setting, if they were obeying the law or if they weren't. It will allow the telecom companies to assert their immunity in court, and to present the relevant documents and evidence to the court in a secret session that protects any ``state secrets.'' The courts can then judge whether the telecom company obeyed the law--in which case it has complete immunity--or whether it did not. And, I remind you, that ``following the law'' means simply obtaining a statement from the government that the company's help is needed, and that the requested help does not require a court order or violate the law. A company that assisted in spying on its customers without getting that simple assurance does not deserve immunity. Mr. Speaker, this bill gives our intelligence agencies what they say they need. But it also demands that their extraordinary powers be used properly, and that they follow our laws and our Constitution. This bill will help limit this Administration's disregard for the rule of law. It is a carefully crafted measure, and deserves the support of every member in this body.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this carefully crafted legislation which gives our intelligence agencies all the tools they say they need to protect our country while protecting our fundamental civil liberties. In the last few weeks, we have heard countless assertions from our colleagues on the other side that are false and misleading. They claim that we allowed the Protect America Act to expire, when it was the Republicans who blocked attempts to extend that bill temporarily, and they continue to claim that retroactive immunity for the telecom companies is necessary for the security of the country. The telecom companies aided the administration's surveillance program. Some people, American citizens, believe their constitutional rights were violated and brought a lawsuit against the government and telecom companies. There are two narratives here. One is that these companies patriotically aided the administration to protect Americans from terrorists. The other is that they conspired with a lawless administration to violate the constitutional rights of Americans. Which of these narratives is right is for a court to decide. It is not the role of Congress to decide legal cases between private parties. That is why we have courts. We had told the telecom companies they would not be subject to lawsuits for doing their duty. But whether they were doing their duty or abusing the rights of Americans is precisely the issue. In any event, the existing law already provides absolute immunity if their help was requested and if they were given a statement by the Attorney General or various other government officials stating that the requested help did not require a warrant or court order and would not break the law. They have immunity. Whether those statements are true or not, they can rely absolutely on the government's assertions. So why do they think they need retroactive immunity? Because of the administration's sweeping assertion of the State secrets doctrine, will has prevented the companies from claiming their immunity. This bill allows the telecom companies in secret in court to present the evidence for their immunity and to get their immunity, if they obeyed the law. And I remind that obeying the law means simply obtaining a statement from the government that the company's help is needed and that the requested help does not require a court order or violated the law. A company that assisted in spying on its customers without getting that simple assurance from the government does not deserve immunity. And even if we voted retroactive immunity, they would still have to prove that immunity for what they do next week in the same way, and they would have the same problem. So, by solving the State secrets problem, we give the companies the immunity they need, if they need it, and if they obeyed the law. This still gives our intelligence agencies what they need. I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3733, the FISA Amendments Act. This carefully crafted legislation gives our intelligence agencies all the tools they say they need to protect our country, while protecting our fundamental civil liberties. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what this legislation does not do. It does not require individual warrants for the targeting of foreign terrorists located outside the United States. For three decades, that has been the law, and it will still be the law under this bill. There is no dispute about this. The bill starts with the recognition that the intelligence community needs to surveil all members of a terrorist group--once that group is identified. Any suggestion that it requires individualized warrants to intercept communications of terrorists overseas is wrong. The bill maintains the traditional requirement of a warrant when our intelligence agencies seek to conduct surveillance on Americans. And because some foreign surveillance may record conversations with Americans, the bill requires that, when the Government proposes to undertake surveillance of a foreign group or entity, it must first apply to the FISA court, except that, in an emergency, the surveillance can begin immediately, and the court can consider the surveillance procedures later. In both this bill and the Senate bill, the government must inform the court of the procedures it will use to ensure that it is targeting only foreigners overseas and how it will ``minimize'' domestic information it might inadvertently pick up. The only real difference is that the Senate bill lets them listen first, then go to the court within 5 days. This bill requires that they go to the FISA Court first. But in an emergency, we give them 7 days to listen before they go to the court. So will someone please tell me how this minor difference between the bills somehow gives rights to terrorist? There is one thing that this bill does not do, and this great body must not do--provide blanket, retroactive immunity to the telecommunication companies that assisted in the President's warrantless wiretapping program. Such a move would fly in the face of our notions of justice. Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks, we have heard countless assertions from our colleagues on the other side that are false and misleading. They claim that we allowed the Protect America Act to expire--when it was the Republicans who blocked attempts to extend that legislation temporarily. And they continue to claim that retroactive immunity for the telecom companies is necessary for the security of the country. But they have failed to provide any evidence for that claim. The telecom companies aided the Administration's surveillance program. Some people--American citizens--believe their constitutional rights were violated, and brought suit against the government and the telecom companies. There are two narratives here. One is that the telecom companies patriotically aided the Administration in protecting Americans from terrorists. The other is that the telecom companies conspired with a lawless Administration to violate the Constitutional rights of Americans. Which of these narratives is correct is for a court to decide. It is not the role of Congress to decide legal cases between private parties. That is why we have courts. If the claims are not meritorious, the courts will throw them out. But if the claims do have merit, we have no right to dismiss them without even reviewing the evidence. We are told that the telecom companies should not be subject to lawsuits for doing their duty. But whether they were doing their duty, or abusing the rights of Americans, is precisely the issue. And that is a legal issue for the courts to decide. In any event, the existing law, in a wise balance of national security and constitutional rights that this bill does not change, already provides absolute immunity to the telecom companies if their help was requested, and if they were given a statement by the Attorney General, or by various other government officials, stating that the requested help did not require a warrant or court order and would not break the law. They have immunity whether those statements were true or not. They can rely absolutely on the government's assertions. So why do they think they need retroactive immunity? Because of the Administration's sweeping assertion of the ``state secrets'' doctrine, which has prevented the companies from claiming their immunity. Title II of this bill will allow the telecoms to show the courts, in a secure setting, if they were obeying the law or if they weren't. It will allow the telecom companies to assert their immunity in court, and to present the relevant documents and evidence to the court in a secret session that protects any ``state secrets.'' The courts can then judge whether the telecom company obeyed the law--in which case it has complete immunity--or whether it did not. And, I remind you, that ``obeying the law'' means simply obtaining a statement from the government that the company's help is needed, and that the requested help does not require a court order or violate the law. A company that assisted in spying on its customers without getting that simple assurance does not deserve immunity. Mr. Speaker, this bill gives our intelligence agencies what they say they need. But it also demands that their extraordinary powers be used properly, and that they follow our laws and our Constitution. This bill will help limit this Administration's disregard for the rule of law. It is a carefully crafted measure, and deserves the support of every member in this body.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the last few weeks, the last few minutes we have heard assertions from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that are false and designed to mislead and frighten the American people. They claim that we allowed the Protect America Act to expire, that we are dark for 27 days. Ken Wainstein, the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, and the Bush administration admitted that because of the provisions of the group warrants in the Protect America Act that had gone on for a year, didn't change anything. It is still in effect, number one. Number two, we forget, this House passed a FISA updating modernization bill in November, on November 14. We called it the RESTORE Act. We waited for the Senate to pass a bill so we could go to conference and compromise on it. When did they pass a bill? Not in November, not in December, not in January. Because of Republican foot- dragging, they didn't pass the bill until February, mid-February, three months after we passed the bill here, and two days before we went home for a week for the Presidents Day recess. The President came out and said it's up to the House to pass the Senate bill, no questions asked. But there are a lot of questions about the Senate bill. Maybe our bill isn't perfect, but their bill is far from perfect, and our bill is closer to perfect than theirs. So then we said, well, if you don't want, because catastrophe will happen, according to the President and the Republicans if we go home without passing the Senate bill, we will extend the Protect America Act for 3 weeks until we can come back and deal with this. Who voted it down? The Republicans. They said, no, don't extend it. The President said he would veto an extension. So let's not hear any remarks on this floor from that side about how we are dark because the act expired. It expired because they made it expire. They voted against a 21-day extension that we could have renewed if necessary until we got this all figured out. So let's not hear any less-than-honest assertions about we are dark and we are unprotected and it is the Democrats' fault. Mr. Speaker, we have a very good bill here. It gives the intelligence community every single tool they need and every tool they say they need. How does it differ from the Senate bill? In two ways. One, it provides for some closer judicial supervision, because while we are giving the intelligence community the tools they need to wiretap on American citizens, on people who are not American citizens, we have to make sure that our constitutional rights and liberties are protected so that this country, which we have all defended, and we all want to defend, remains worthy of being defended by defending our own liberties. Remember why we enacted protections in the first place, because the administration at the time wiretapped Martin Luther King. We don't want that to happen again by a future administration. And so we must protect our civil liberties. We are told that telecom companies, if we don't provide retroactive immunity, they won't cooperate in the future, we won't get their help. Number one, that is an aspersion on their patriotism. Number two, they can be compelled to do so under court order. And number three, they have always had immunity. They have it now. All they have to do to have immunity is to have a request from the administration that says: A, we need your help; B, you are not violating the law if you do what we ask; and C, you don't need a court order. If they get that request, whether those assertions are true or not, as long as the administration says we need your help, what we are asking you to do won't violate the law, and you don't need a court order, they are absolutely immune. And they have always had this immunity. So why do they need retroactive immunity, they say because the administration won't permit them to go to court and say we were asked for help, we gave that help. We have this request and we got the legal assurances because the administration won't let that go to court because it says it will violate State secrets. So what does our bill do? It says you can go to court under secret procedures to protect the security of the State secrets, but you can assert your defense in court and get the case thrown out if you at least got the assurance by the administration in advance, which is all the law required. If you didn't get that, then you have no respect for the privacy rights of Americans and you don't deserve immunity. Even if we gave retroactive immunity for the future to the telecom company that helped us next week, they still have the same requirements for immunity. And if they wanted to go to court to assert them if someone sued them, they would still have to go to court and say the same thing. So you are dealing with a one-time fix. Retroactive immunity takes it out of the courts and says Congress shall say to American citizens you're wrong, you can't protect your constitutional rights in court, you're right. That is a duty for the courts, not for Congress. That is the basis of the protections of all of our rights. The Senate bill goes the wrong way. We protect the telecom companies and protect our liberties. It is the right way to go. I urge adoption of this rule.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, the state secrets privilege is a common law doctrine that allows the Government to protect sensitive national security information from harmful disclosure in litigation. This privilege was first recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1953 case of U.S. v. Reynolds, a case brought by the widows of three civilian engineers against the U.S. Government for negligence in a military airplane crash. The Government refused to produce an accident report of the crash, claiming that disclosure of the report would reveal secret military information harmful to national security. The Court accepted the Government's state secret claim and allowed the Government to withhold the report without ever reviewing it. When the report was discovered through an internet search 50 years later, it did not reveal any secret military information but, instead, showed the Government's negligence in the crash. Unfortunately, Reynolds is not the only instance where the secrecy claims have been abused. Exaggerated claims of national security were made in an effort to conceal information about U.S. conduct in Vietnam and the bombing of Cambodia in the ``Pentagon Papers'' case and to prevent prosecution for the unlawful sale of arms to Iran and the funneling of proceeds from those sales to the Nicaraguan Contras. In the ``Pentagon Papers'' case, N.Y. Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, Solicitor General Griswold warned the Supreme Court that publication of the information would pose a ``grave and immediate danger to the security of the United States.'' Eighteen years later, he acknowledged that he had never seen ``any trace of a threat to the national security'' from publication of the information and that ``there is very rarely any real risk to current national security from the publication of facts relating to transactions in the past, even the fairly recent past.'' What these examples teach is that when a government is allowed to escape accountability by hiding behind unexamined claims of national security, it often will, making judicial oversight of state secrets privilege claim critical to our constitutional system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, in the years following Reynolds, courts have proven reluctant to test Government claims of secrecy, often failing to examine evidence independently and accepting the Government's secrecy claim at face value. Concerns about the lack of judicial oversight of the state secrets privilege have increased as the current administration has responded to cases challenging the most troubling aspects of its `` war on terror''--including rendition, torture, and warrantless wiretapping-- with blanket claims that these cases must be dismissed outright, before any discovery can proceed. As a result, injured plaintiffs have been denied justice and the courts have failed to address fundamental questions of constitutional rights. Take, for example, the case of Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen who was kidnapped, rendered to a CIA black site, and tortured before the administration realized that it had the wrong man. There is extensive public evidence supporting Mr. El- Masri's case, including a Council of Europe report verifying the accuracy of Mr. El-Masri's claims and the administration's public disclosure and defense of the rendition and interrogation of terror suspects as a valuable tool in its ``war on terror.'' Yet the administration successfully argued that Mr. El-Masri's case should be dismissed before any discovery could occur based on the state secret privilege. The transformation of a governmental privilege to withhold specific items of evidence into a claim of absolute immunity, and the overall lack of consistency in how courts handle state secret claims, requires Congressional reform. In 1980, Congress enacted the Classified Information Procedures Act--known as CIPA--to provide courts with clear statutory guidance on handling secret evidence in criminal cases. Congress also authorized courts to review and rule upon sensitive materials under the Freedom of Information Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. For the past several decades, courts have effectively and safely applied these laws--under the procedures and standards articulated by Congress--to protect sensitive information while also respecting the rule of law and providing fairness and justice to litigants. It is time to enact procedures and standards for civil cases similar to those that we already have provided for criminal cases. Many have called for this reform, including the American Bar Association, which recently issued a report calling upon Congress to enact procedures and standards that promote meaningful, independent judicial review and ``bring uniformity to a significant issue on which courts have adopted divergent approaches.'' The bipartisan Constitution Project has similarly urged us to ``craft statutory language to clarify that judges, not the executive branch, have the final say about whether disputed evidence is subject to the state secret privilege,'' reminding us that ``reforms are critical to ensure the independence of our judiciary and to provide a necessary check on executive power.'' In a recent hearing held by the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, which I chair, experts like retired Federal judges Patricia Wald and William Webster supported legislative efforts to require independent judicial review. According to Judge Webster: ``As a former Director of the FBI and Director of the CIA, I fully understand and support our government's need to protect sensitive national security information. However, as a former federal judge, I can also confirm that judges can and should be trusted with sensitive information and that they are fully competent to perform an independent review of executive branch assertions of the state secrets privilege. Judges are well-qualified to review evidence purportedly subject to the privilege and make appropriate decisions as to whether disclosure of such information is likely to harm our national security.'' The State Secret Protection Act of 2008 provides much-needed reform by establishing rules and standards for determining state secret privilege claims. The act will strengthen national security by ensuring that legitimate secrets are protected from harmful disclosure, and it will strengthen the rule of law by preventing abuse of the privilege and maximizing the ability of litigants to achieve justice in court. Modeled on CIPA, but adjusted for civil litigation, the State Secret Protection Act provides for secure judicial proceedings and other safeguards to protect valid state secrets. Under the act, a judge may not blindly rely upon assertions of secrecy and harm contained in an official's affidavit. Judges must review the information that the Government seeks to protect, along with any other evidence or argument relevant to the claim, to determine whether the harm identified by the Government is reasonably likely to occur. Where this standard is met, a judge may not order disclosure of the information. The judge must, however, consider whether a non-privileged substitute can be created that would allow the litigation to continue. If a substitute is possible--for example, a redacted version of a document or a summary of the information--the government has the choice of producing the substitute or having the court resolve the issue to which the evidence is relevant against it, as happens in CIPA. Where there is no possible substitute, the judge may issue appropriate orders, including dismissing a claim or finding for or against a party on a factual or legal issue. The act allows the Government to raise a claim of privilege to avoid answering allegations in a complaint but prevents premature dismissal of claims before all issues of privilege are resolved and the parties have the opportunity to conduct non- privileged discovery. Through these procedures and standards, the act allows parties the opportunity to make a preliminary case and provides courts with the flexibility to craft solutions that protect valid state secrets from harmful and serve the interests of justice. Congress has clear constitutional authority to establish rules of procedure and evidence for the courts, and reform of the state secrets privilege in civil litigation is long overdue. I urge all of you, my colleagues in the House, to join us in this important effort.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I joined my colleagues in writing to the President urging him to sign this conference report. This conference report contains a provision that mirrors legislation which I authored with Congressman Delahunt, the American Anti-Torture Act, that would ensure a single, uniform baseline standard for all interrogations conducted by the U.S. intelligence community. I applaud the leadership of Senator Feinstein and the other conferees for including this measure in the report. Since news of the mistreatment, and possible torture, of detainees in U.S. custody first surfaced, Congress has debated, and legislated, on the subject of the legal, and moral, limits on interrogation. Torture is unworthy of the United States and its people. It places every American, especially every American in uniform around the world, at grave risk. The United States has historically been a leader in the effort to establish and enforce the laws of war and the conventions against torture. The Army Field Manual is an outstanding example of how our modern military effectively gathers intelligence and observes international norms of conduct. We all understand the critical role that intelligence plays in helping us achieve these goals. But torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, besides being contrary to our values, have proven not to be effective in obtaining actionable intelligence. Current and former members of the military have made it clear that torture doesn't work. That includes General Petraeus, who wrote an open letter that the standards in the Army Field Manual ``work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.'' Lieutenant General Kimmons, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, similarly stated that ``No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. Any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, under, through the use of abusive techniques would be of questionable credibility.'' Mr. Speaker, the President and this administration have repeatedly said that America does not torture. But most intelligent people know the word of this administration cannot be trusted. And to prove the point, when asked to place those assurances into law, the President refuses. Now Congress must act to override the President's veto and hold him to his word. And later this week, we will deal with FISA. And all the nonsense spewed by the other side will be dealt with because we will again, as we did last November, pass a bill which will give every tool the administration says they need to them but will place it under judicial and congressional supervision to protect our liberties as well as our safety. I urge support of this veto override to outlaw torture once and for all.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the contempt resolutions. Unfortunately, these resolutions are necessary for Congress to meet its Constitutional obligations and conduct oversight and investigations. We provided many opportunities for the administration to avoid this situation. But here we are. We are here today to consider issuing contempt citations for former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten for their failure even to appear in response to valid subpoenas issued in our investigation of the firings of a number of United States Attorneys and related matters concerning the politicization of the Justice Department. We issued these subpoenas only after repeated unsuccessful attempts to secure their cooperation voluntarily. It is one thing to assert a legal privilege; but no one has a legal right simply to refuse to appear at all. This investigation seeks answers to ensure that the American people can trust the Justice Department to be guided by the law and not by political obligations or pressures. This resolution is about the rule of law. We are taught about a system of checks and balances to prevent abuses, but this Executive has shown that it thinks the rules do not apply to it. This sets a dangerous precedent for our democracy. Our system of government works only when each branch respects the authority and role of the others, and follows the rule of law. For the sake of our democracy, for the sake of the rule of law, and for the sake of our Constitution, I urge my colleagues to support the resolutions.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5349, a 21-day extension of the existing FISA Act to provide Congress the time to work out the differences between the two Houses on this very important matter. It is a question of our Nation's security and it is a question of our Nation's values. We should not be stampeded into action when there is no need. This administration has the ability to monitor terrorists, and extending current law for 21 days will not remove that ability. What this debate is really about is whether national security wiretapping should be subject to judicial and congressional oversight, as the bill that we passed last November, the RESTORE Act, provides and as traditional American values insist on, or whether the administration, any administration, can be trusted to police itself, whether American citizens' liberty should be subject to the unreviewable discretion of the Executive as the Protect America Act and the Senate-passed bill provide.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today in support of this resolution. Like all of my colleagues, I was deeply saddened to learn that our good friend, the distinguished gentleman from California, Tom Lantos, had passed away. And he was our good friend, unfailingly courteous and kind and helpful to all. Tom has left an inspiring legacy, and his passing is a great loss to our country and to the entire world. Throughout his life, Tom devoted himself to human rights and to the cause of persecuted racial, religious, and ethnic minorities. As a survivor of the Holocaust, and the only survivor ever to serve in Congress, he had seen firsthand real evil, and he became a tireless advocate for human rights. As a youth, he was a member of the anti-Nazi underground, and his life's work was built on opposing anti-Semitism and all forms of racism and oppression and attempted genocide, and on supporting Israel, the country that emerged as the haven for the survivors and refugees from the Holocaust. Congressman Lantos once said, ``I will never be able to express fully my profoundly felt gratitude to this great country.'' But it is this Nation that will never be able to express adequately its gratitude to this great man. His life and devotion to human rights should serve as an inspiration to us all. My thoughts and prayers, our thoughts and prayers, and those of a grateful Nation, are with Annette and with the rest of Tom's family and friends during this sad time. And in this hour of bereavement, as we mourn the loss of this great man, what can we finally say other than to thank God for Tom's life and work, and to repeat that ancient refrain, ``The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord.''

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to affirm America's values and our respect for the rule of law. This bill includes language drawn from the American Anti-Torture Act, introduced by myself and Representative Delahunt, that would extend the interrogation standards in the U.S. Army Field Manual to all interrogations conducted on persons in the custody or effective control of any element of the intelligence community. This will ensure a single, uniform baseline standard for interrogations. That means no more torture, no more waterboarding, no more clever word play, no more evasive answers, no more dishonesty. People in nations do terrible things in war, but civilized nations long ago recognized that there must be limits on their conduct even during military conflict. Our Army Field Manual is an outstanding example of a modern military dedicated to observing international norms of conduct while waging war effectively. It is a credit to our men and women in uniform that they continue to abide by these rules. It is unforgivable that some civilians here in Washington seem to think that they know better and we must be more brutal than our military and professional interrogators. I understand the critical role that intelligence plays in protecting ourselves, but torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, besides being contrary to American values and traditions, have proven not to be effective in obtaining actionable intelligence. Current and former members of the military have made this clear. General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, recently wrote in an open letter to U.S. troops that the standards in the Army Field Manual ``work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.'' Lieutenant General Kimmons, Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence similarly stated ``no good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. Any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress through the use of abusive techniques would be of questionable credibility.'' The Bush administration has long argued that it does not torture but it does waterboard. And we prosecuted, we sent to jail Japanese officers for waterboarding prisoners after World War II. We knew then that waterboarding was torture, and despite statements from the Bush administration or the nonstatements, we know now that it is torture. Torture places our servicemen and women and our allies at grave risk. We must accept that whatever we authorize and use against our enemies will be turned against our own men and women. Mr. Speaker, it is time to restore the honor of the United States. It is time to restore the good name of the United States in a world that has been so sullied by the conduct of this administration. It is time to compel the administration to act in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States. I applaud the leadership of the conferees in including the antitorture language in this bill. I urge support for the conference report. I hope this will begin the process of restoring the honor and the integrity of the United States.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007. This bill delivers on the promise of the 13th amendment by creating tough new enforcement tools to punish exploitation, whether by unscrupulous labor recruiters, diplomats who abuse their servants, or brutal pimps. It provides resources so that nongovernmental organizations, Federal and local law enforcement, and the faith community can work together to liberate victims and bring their traffickers to justice. It will protect victims of modern slavery in the United States and provide foreign aid and diplomatic tools to combat modern slavery overseas as well. In many ways, the fight against modern slavery began in New York City in the mid-1990s. There was the infamous ``Bowery Brothel'' case in which Thai women were held in prostitution and literally chained to their beds. And there were the so-called ``Deaf Mexican'' trinket peddlers who were enslaved under our own eyes, unable to ask for help as they were forced to beg on the subways. Since then, criminal civil rights investigators have uncovered examples of enslavement across the country, including many in the New York City area. Recently, we have seen the liberation of Honduran women who were forced to drink and dance with clients in dance halls in New Jersey; Peruvian families freed from enslavement by a labor recruiter on Long Island; and the rescue of young American women from a street pimp in Connecticut. All of their traffickers have been convicted and imprisoned because they violated the Constitution prohibition against involuntary servitude and slavery. More than a century after the abolition of slavery, we would expect slavery to be a closed chapter in our Nation's history. But, unfortunately, it is not. The Constitution promises to end the suffering of all those who have been held in bondage. As a country, we owe it to the victims of modern-day slavery never to stop fighting for their freedom. This bill, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, renews our commitment to fulfilling the promise of the 13th amendment by providing new enforcement tools and more resources to remove the stain of modern-day slavery from our Nation. I urge its adoption and thank the chairman of the committee and Mr. Smith who was involved in developing the 2000 act and in developing this act, and I urge its adoption.