Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, on October 7, the State of Israel was treacherously attacked by the terrorist group Hamas. They murdered 1,200 peaceful people, many of them at a musical festival, some from Kibbutz Nir Oz near the border. They kidnapped 250 people illegally, of course, and took them into Gaza. We know that some of them have been released in a deal that was made, one of them was an American Israeli named Abigail, just 4 years old. She was kept together with three other hostages and was given one piece of pita, Middle East bread, for the four of them per day. When they came home, they had to be deloused. Their hair and their clothes were full of lice, and they said that if they had to go to the bathroom, they had to wait 2 hours. Mr. Speaker, Hamas has said over and over again, they will attack over and over again, again and again until Israel is no more. When people demand a cease-fire, we should think what we would have thought about people demanding a cease-fire 7 or 8 weeks after Pearl Harbor. A cease-fire would simply permit Hamas to regroup and to attack Israel again and again and again, which they have told us they would do. By the way, there had been cease-fires. There have been four cease- fires, every one of which Hamas broke, including breaking a cease-fire on October 7. One of the hostages who was taken was a fellow named Danny Elgarat, brother of Yitzchak Elgarat. I want to read what Danny said about that. He said, ``My name is Danny, Danny Elgarat. Around 10:30 a.m., my brother calls me, my brother, Yitzchak Elgarat. He lives in Kibbutz Nir Oz. He tells me that his hand is crushed, flooded with blood. He was hysterical and stressed, and I didn't quite understand what was going on with him, and I tried to guide him how to apply a tourniquet to stop the blood. ``Suddenly, while I am still trying to guide him, I hear screams in the background and shouts. Then Itzik, my brother Itzik, shouts `Danny, it's the end. It's the end,' and our call is cut off. ``Afterwards we checked the matter of Itzik's phone, the location of the phone. We found out that his phone is located in Gaza, the center of the city of Gaza. ``When he would come back to us, we would sit in the porch with a good glass of Whiskey and we would say it was just a bad dream.'' Mr. Speaker, I pray for Yitzhak and all the remaining hostages who were so barbarically taken from their families. Bring them home and defeat Hamas so they can't do this again and again and again.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to Amendment 109 which imposes a cap of 30 percent of the total grant on all facilities and administrative, or F&A, costs for research awards made by the National Institutes of Health. F&A costs help keep the lights on at research facilities across the country. These costs are essential reimbursements for operational expenses incurred by universities and other research institutions for conducting research on behalf of the government. This amendment would greatly affect the ability of research institutions to operate cutting- edge laboratories and maintain utilities such as heating or hazardous waste disposal. This amendment would reduce critical scientific research that directly contributes to our ability to save lives and reducing suffering for the communities we serve. Most medical breakthroughs were federally supported and took place at medical schools, teaching hospitals, and other research institutions across the country. Without the federal government's reimbursement of F&A costs, institutions would be forced to scale back research that may help develop the next vaccine or cure for cancer, Alzheimer's, and other health threats, or the next technological innovation that will create new businesses or medical devices. As a result of these cuts, Americans will have to wait longer for cures and our country will cede scientific breakthroughs to foreign competitors such as China, which is heavily investing in this space. This would undermine our nation's economic competitiveness and erode the United States' longstanding commitment to medical research that has yielded countless benefits to society and our well-being. In summary, cutting essential F&A costs for scientific research would result in slower scientific progress, longer waits for cures, fewer jobs, and a threat to our nation's economic competitiveness. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1505, the No Stolen Trademarks Honored in America Act. H.R. 1505 would build on existing law to ensure that executive agencies do not recognize, enforce, or otherwise validate the assertion of trademark rights used in connection with a business whose assets were confiscated by the Cuban regime unless the original owner expressly consented to the transfer of that mark. It also makes technical amendments to ensure that we are in compliance with certain international obligations. This legislation largely involves a long-running dispute over the rightful ownership of a specific trademark that has played out over the course of many decades. It is a tale with more twists and turns than a John Grisham novel. This bill is really about a much larger principle--that we stand with the Cuban people whose property was seized by the Castro regime, and we will not give the protection and benefits of the U.S. trademark system to the holders of stolen property. Our trademark system must not be allowed to be a vehicle for the perpetrators of stolen property to profit from their theft. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) for bringing this legislation forward. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes a minor clarification to our trademark laws while serving notice to corrupt regimes across the world that America's intellectual property system must not be used to further their efforts to steal property from their own people. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1105, the Debbie Smith Act of 2023, would reauthorize landmark legislation first enacted 19 years ago, in 2004, which has been instrumental in addressing a backlog of untested rape kits sitting in evidence rooms and crime labs across the country. Nearly 20 years ago, when I helped lead efforts to help enact the original version of this legislation, I said: ``It is imperative that we eliminate the shameful backlog of untested rape kits.'' Despite our best efforts, the backlog still exists, and my thoughts remain the same. It is imperative that we eliminate the rape kit backlog; full stop. For every rape kit that is yet to be tested, there is a victim of an unspeakable crime who has yet to see justice or find closure. In some cases, there is an individual languishing in prison who does not belong there. It is for these reasons that we must continue the crucial mission of this legislation and ensure justice for survivors and for the wrongfully convicted. Over the past two decades, the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program has been vital in supporting the processing and analysis of rape kits, DNA evidence collection and analysis, and victim resources. Millions of dollars have been allocated to increase the capacity of forensic laboratories in countless jurisdictions, provide DNA training and education to thousands of law enforcement personnel, and provide support services to a multitude of victims. As a result of this legislation, thousands of cases have been solved, and countless survivors have finally received the justice they so rightfully deserve. While we laud the numerous achievements made possible by this legislation, ultimately, we know that funding is vital to the success of this grant program. That is why I offered an amendment to similar legislation during the 107th Congress that would increase the authorization of funds to address the backlog to $150 million. Although the Debbie Smith program was authorized to provide up to $151 million in grant funds during the following Congress, the full amount has never been appropriated, and it appears that the amounts appropriated are decreasing each year. Failure to fully fund this program limits the capacity to address the backlog, which often numbers in the thousands and has worsened largely due to the pandemic. If we really want to solve this problem, we will appropriate $151 million, the full amount of the authorization, in this year's budget. Delays in testing undermine public safety, allowing dangerous criminals to evade apprehension and potentially commit additional crimes. It is my hope that the appropriators will fully fund this critical program going forward. Reauthorizing the Debbie Smith program makes our communities safer. By investing in DNA testing and forensic technology, this legislation ensures law enforcement agencies are empowered to identify perpetrators more efficiently and to link them to other unsolved cases. These identifications and connections not only bring closure to victims and their families, but they also prevent future crimes by removing serial offenders from our streets. Above all, reauthorizing the Debbie Smith program sends a clear message to survivors of sexual assault, domestic violence, and other crimes that we stand with them. While Congress has recognized the urgency of addressing the backlog and disbursed millions of dollars in grant funds through the Debbie Smith program and other grant programs in response to this problem, we must be certain that these funds are put to good use. That is why H.R. 1105 would also reauthorize for 5 years the allocation of grants for State and local governments that receive funding under the Debbie Smith program to conduct an audit of sexual assault evidence that is in their possession and awaiting testing. This particular provision promotes the collection of data to help us better understand the nature and extent of the backlog and why it persists, while providing grantees with the resources they need to perform the audit and comply with other conditions and requirements set forth in the statute without reducing the total funds available to carry out the primary purposes of the Debbie Smith program. The Debbie Smith Act of 2023 is an important measure that ensures our continued support of State and local governments in reducing the nationwide backlog of untested rape kits, protecting victims, closing cases, preventing crime, exonerating the wrongfully accused and convicted, and holding perpetrators of crime accountable, while promoting the thoughtful allocation and use of Federal funds. Again, I emphasize that this will not work as well as it should. We will not protect as many victims as we should; we will not exonerate as many wrongfully convicted people as we should if we don't fully fund the program and if we don't convince the appropriators to appropriate the $151 million authorized in this bill. I thank Representative Ann Wagner for introducing this legislation along with Representatives Sheila Jackson Lee, Steve Cohen, Wesley Hunt, and Ben Cline. I encourage my colleagues to join me and a broad, bipartisan coalition of cosponsors in support of H.R. 1105. Mr. Speaker, the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program has proven to be a bipartisan beacon of hope, shining a light on justice sometimes long denied. This legislation would reauthorize this crucial program and other safeguards and emphasize our commitment not only to public safety but also to survivor support and crime prevention. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, one of the important responsibilities the House gives the Judiciary Committee is to oversee the revision and codification of the statutes of the United States. Keeping track of the new laws Congress passes every session is a formidable challenge, but it is an essential part of maintaining the rule of law in our country, and it is a role we take seriously on the Judiciary Committee. I thank the chairman of the committee for bringing legislation to the floor today, on a bipartisan basis, to further this important duty. The body of Federal law is so large and complex at this point that it would be almost completely unmanageable without the United States Code. Currently consisting of 54 titles, the code compiles the general and permanent laws of the United States into coherent subject areas. This makes our Federal laws accessible both to the government officials who work to fairly administer them and to the private citizens who seek the benefits and relief the laws provide them. The painstaking and vital work of maintaining and updating the code falls to the expert lawyers working under the supervision of the House in the Office of Law Revision Counsel. We owe a great debt to these attorneys who ably carry out their statutory mandate to develop and keep current an official and positive codification of the laws of the United States while maintaining strict impartiality as to legislative policy. H.R. 3496 is the first of four editorial reclassification bills that we are taking up today that make conforming changes to statutes that have been impacted by the Office of Law Revision Counsel's reauthorization efforts while making no change to the meaning or effect of any existing laws. This legislation will help ensure that the code is an authoritative, accurate, and accessible source of Federal law, and I urge all Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, like the previous bill, H.R. 3506 makes a number of technical amendments to various provisions of the U.S. Code but makes no substantive changes. Mr. Speaker, I support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3578, which makes a number of technical amendments to various provisions of the United States Code, while making no substantive changes. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ivey) for introducing the bill. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3571, which makes a number of technical amendments to various provisions of the U.S. Code, while making no substantive changes. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean) for introducing the bill. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 786. This legislation would amend title 28 of the United States Code to provide an additional place for holding court in the Western District of Texas and in the Western District of Washington. These additional courthouses are needed to better serve the 12.2 million people who call these two districts home. Both of these districts are comprised of wide areas of land. The Western District of Washington takes up half of Washington State. The Western District of Texas covers the western 68 counties of the State. Citizens of these two districts often need to travel for hours to access the courthouse doors. On paper, our basic rights do not change depending on where we live. In practice, that is exactly what is happening. It makes no sense that just because someone lives in a more rural, broader district, they should incur dramatically increased travel time and administrative costs to seek justice. Adding courthouses is a small step in the right direction toward making the courthouse doors accessible to all Americans no matter where they live. The Judicial Conference has recommended the addition of these two courthouses, a recommendation that grew even more urgent after the Western District of Washington's Bellingham facility had part of its roof collapse. This country cannot have a flourishing justice system when its buildings are falling apart, its staff are underpaid, and there is a perpetual shortage of judges to fairly administer the laws. This bill will not fix all of these problems, but it will take a small step to help millions of Americans gain equal access to justice. I think it is a step worth taking. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representatives Tony Gonzales, Rick Larsen, and Suzan DelBene in the House, and Senators Cornyn, Murray, Cruz, and Cantwell in the Senate for working on a bipartisan basis to introduce this legislation to improve the lives of the residents of Texas and Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes a modest but important change to help improve access to justice for millions of Americans. I thank the sponsors, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise today in opposition to this amendment to eliminate funding for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, or HOPWA program. This amendment would cut off housing support for tens of thousands of people living with HIV. In doing so, we take ourselves back to the 1980s--when the government ignored the needs of those living with HIV and the urgency of the HIV epidemic. For more than three decades, HOPWA has provided critical support for low-income people living with HIV. HOPWA is a bipartisan program that serves over 75,000 people, providing housing assistance including rental assistance, transitional housing, and permanent housing. Stable housing is essential for helping people living with HIV to achieve better health outcomes. Linking individuals living with HIV to stable, supportive housing is directly linked to decreased viral load, an 80 percent reduction in mortality from AIDS, and a 57 percent reduction in hospitalizations. To destabilize housing for 55,000 households and over 75,000 people would create a public health disaster. Cutting funding to HOPWA would cost far more money in increased healthcare costs than investing in this critical program at the outset. This amendment would significantly impede our Nation's efforts both to support those living with HIV and to end the HIV epidemic. With Veterans Day on Saturday, I also want to inform my colleagues that 10 percent of HOPWA recipients are veterans. I strongly oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to join me in calling for continued funding for HOPWA, just as this body has done since 1992. If the gentleman is truly interested in cutting the deficit, he might consider supporting repeal of President Trump's tax cuts of 2018 where 83 percent of the benefits went to the top 1 percent of the people and which increased the deficit by several trillion dollars. In summary, I urge the defeat of this amendment for health reasons and for fiscal reasons.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, due to my train being delayed, I did not make it to the Capitol in time for votes this evening. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 599 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 600.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, which for the first time conditions emergency, essential aid to Israel on cuts to the domestic budget. The majority is attempting to divide Congress for purely partisan gain. It is despicable. I stand here as a proud progressive Zionist. Support for Israel is built into my DNA. My wife lived in Israel. I have family in Israel. I was horrified by the events of October 7. It was a traumatic moment for Israel and a traumatic moment for the global Jewish community. I remain committed to doing whatever I can to support our ally Israel in its fight against the terrorist organization Hamas, especially since Hamas' statement last night that they would repeat the October 7 massacre over and over until Israel is no more. I look forward to voting for President Biden's complete supplemental military and humanitarian aid package, including strategic and military assistance to Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan, and humanitarian assistance to Gaza, Israel, and Ukraine to deal with extreme crisis conditions caused by two major wars. Today's vote is not about supporting Israel. It is not about global security. Rather, today's vote is on a divisive political maneuver that leads us down a dark road. It sets a dangerous precedent, pitting our national security and support for democratic allies against domestic expenditures. When Israel needs more funds, will we have to find another offset? It must be repeated. This so-called offset will actually increase the deficit, all while allowing the wealthiest to cheat on their taxes. As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has made clear, it would add $12.5 billion to the deficit in the next decade. I will proudly support emergency supplemental aid to Israel. I look forward to voting for that bill, but the bill we are voting on today is just a partisan game. It is an insult to Jewish Americans, and it is an insult to our ally Israel. The pro-Israel vote is a ``no.'' I will proudly vote ``no,'' reject this unprecedented partisanship, and wait for a genuine bill to aid Israel.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate October as National Spina Bifida Awareness Month, to recognize the approximately 166,000 Americans living with this condition, and to draw attention to the critical challenges we must address to ensure that each and every one of these individuals can achieve their full human potential and have the quality of life they deserve. According to the Spina Bifida Association of America, Spina Bifida is the most common permanently disabling birth defect compatible with life. Literally translated as ``split spine,'' Spina Bifida occurs when a baby's neural tube fails to develop or close properly. Typically occurring within the first 28 days of pregnancy while the neural tube is forming, Spina Bifida often develops before a woman even knows she is pregnant. Children born with Spina Bifida typically undergo dozens of surgeries before they reach the age of 18. And during their lifetime, someone with Spina Bifida will face at least a $1 million in medical expenses, including multiple surgeries. Despite these challenges--and thanks to advances in research and medicine, along with policies supportive of children with this condition--nearly two-thirds of Americans currently living with Spina Bifida have made it to adulthood. And while these strides are certainly worth celebrating, people with Spina Bifida--particularly adults-- continue to face a crisis of care that could be largely prevented with the right resources and policies. While we have a coordinated system of care designed to treat children with Spina Bifida in the U.S., there is no equivalent for adults. The result is that adults face a ``care cliff'' and enter a very fractured medical system where they are unable to find physicians willing or even knowledgeable enough to provide treatment, as Spina Bifida is stil largely taught in medical schools as a pediatric condition and education has failed to keep pace with the rapid rise in the adult Spina Bifida population. Thousands of adults are left with few options other than to seek care in the emergency room or continue to see their pediatric care team until insurance will no longer cover their care because of their age. And to make matters worse, many of these adults rely on Medicaid as their insurance provider, so even if they have the means to travel to an adult specialist, if they are located in another state--as is often the case--their coverage is denied. Across the country, there are more than 100 pediatric clinics devoted to caring for children with Spina Bifida. There are only 20 whose focus is on adults. At the federal level, we could make dramatic improvements in the ability of adults with Spina Bifida to access quality care by increasing the funding of the CDC's National Spina Bifida Program--the only federal program tasked with improving the care and outcomes for people living with Spina Bifida. In 2008, the Spina Bifida Program created a National Spina Bifida Patient Registry to collect the scientific data needed to evaluate existing medical services for Spina Bifida patients, and to provide clinicians, researchers, patients, and families, a window into what care models are effective and what treatments are not making a measurable difference. Building on this in 2014, the Spina Bifida Program funded the development of a Spina Bifida Collaborative Care Network to identify and to disseminate best practices for the care of people with Spina Bifida at all ages. However, with only $7.5 million in annual funding, there are only 11,000 patients in the national registry, limiting the ability of medical professionals to glean knowledge that would advance research in areas critical to improving quality of life. Even modest increases to this funding would make an enormous difference. Additionally, we should urge NIH to work collaboratively across their many divisions to better understand Spina Bifida. As Spina Bifida can affect every organ and every system in the human body, a collaborative effort undertaken by NIH could result in research that would lead to better care for both this generation and future generations of Spina Bifida patients. Moreover, the new designation of those with disabilities as a health disparity creates a new opportunity to harness federal resources for the Spina Bifida community by ensuring their representation in NIH research and thereby recognizing those with this complex condition in a new and critical light. We are so fortunate today that our country is benefiting from the talent and contributions of the first generation of adults living with Spina Bifida. Today, I honor and celebrate all of them, along with their care partners, and also remember those we have lost to this condition. I urge my colleagues to not only increase funding for the National Spina Bifida Program, but to work together so that these Americans receive the care and treatment all of us want for our families and loved ones.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Honorable Cynthia Doty, long time resident of the Upper West Side, political activist, and Democratic District Leader, who passed away in Manhattan at the age of 72 on July 17, 2023. I first met Cynthia 30 years ago working in local Democratic politics. I worked alongside her former boss Assemblymember Ed Sullivan in the New York State Assembly. Cynthia served 9 years as his Legislative Associate and Special Assistant. In Albany, she drafted legislation and negotiated budgets. In the district, she advocated on behalf of thousands of constituents to protect their housing and deliver needed services. Cynthia was a major force in the Three Parks Independent Democrats political club and served as its President and as District Leader. Cynthia was kind, honest, and skilled at her position, and was both respected and beloved within the community. She was extremely reliable--if she said she was going to get something done, it would always get done--and she was a gracious host to me and others who visited her political club frequently. Under her leadership, the club members were very active in gathering petition signatures and mobilizing the vote in our area for countless elected officials at all levels of politics from District Leader to Congressman, Senator, and President. Cynthia and her club did the work to help get Democrats elected across the country--not just in New York--and organized bus trips to Connecticut and Pennsylvania to get out the votes. She ran phone banks that reached voters across the country and was always finding ways for volunteers to get involved and fight for causes they believed in. She was my guest at both inaugurations of President Obama and frequently attended marches and protests on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. She opposed the war in Iraq, supported a woman's right to choose, and defended LGBTQ+ rights. She supported community farms and was a member of a CSA (community supported agriculture) where she enjoyed volunteering. Cynthia was born into a Democratic family in Philadelphia in 1951, where she developed her progressive principles and a deep commitment to public service. Cynthia went to public school, co-chaired the racial justice committee at her college, and led several college groups to Washington to protest the Vietnam War. Her parents were active in politics--her father, Ethan Allen Doty, served as a judge for over 40 years and was a leading figure in the Democratic reform movement. Her mother, Beatrice Graham Doty, was a Democratic State Committeewoman. Her brothers, Ed Doty and Warren Doty, both served in elected positions in Pelham, New York and Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts respectively. Cynthia was not only into politics. She spent 20 years as a theatrical costume designer in major productions that appeared on Broadway, at Lincoln Center, and at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. She worked in film on The Wiz with Michael Jackson and Diana Ross, in opera with the 3 tenors--Jose Carreras, Luciano Pavarotti, and Placido Domingo, and on Broadway in the production of ``On Your Toes''. After many of her friends passed away due to the AIDS epidemic, Cynthia was moved to return to community service and work for social justice. It was her passion for justice and her willingness to fight for what she believed in that helped her inspire others to participate in the political process and be motivated to go out and vote. It is entirely fitting that she ended her political career as the Manhattan Deputy Chief Clerk at the New York City Board of Elections. In that role, she oversaw a vast operation of election officials responsible for processing ballots during several tumultuous changes in New York State election law. She oversaw ``early voting'' efforts that allow people to vote before election day and efforts to ensure absentee or vote by mail ballots were processed properly during the COVID-19 epidemic. She helped ensure polling places were open and accessible and people knew where and how to vote. In, perhaps, her last major election, she was involved in processing my own re-election in a contested primary in Manhattan. She was the consummate professional and made sure the election was carried out without controversy. Too often we take for granted the work people like Cynthia do to help our communities, but we would be remiss if we did not honor and thank her and her team for a job well done. I enjoyed working with Cynthia over the past 30 to 40 years. Her contributions to her community knew no end. The people of Manhattan's Upper West Side will miss her deeply but know that we will continue to carry out the work that she cared about so deeply. We will continue to work for social justice, environmental justice, women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and health care for all. I thank her for her years of service. May she rest in peace. And may her memory be a blessing to us all.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize lifelong New Yorker, political power broker, former New York Lieutenant Governor, and dear friend and mentor of mine, Richard Ravitch, on the occasion of his passing on Sunday, June 25, 2023, at the age of 89. I am proud to be joined today to remember Richard by Representatives Daniel Goldman, Eric Swalwell, Adam Schiff, Patrick Ryan, Nydia Velazquez, Gregory Meeks, Grace Meng, and Joseph Morelle. The son of a Russian Jewish immigrant, Richard was born in Manhattan in 1933. He attended Oberlin College and transferred to Columbia College, earning a bachelor's degree in history in 1955. Richard continued his education, graduating from the Yale University School of Law in 1958. After graduation, Richard served active duty in the United States Army during the Berlin Wall Crisis in 1962. Richard took the helm of his family's construction company, HRH Construction Corporation, in the 1960s, developing landmark buildings such as Waterside Plaza and Citicorp Center. An early advocate for integrated, affordable housing, Richard partnered with Bayard Rustin and A. Phillip Randolph on the first de-segregated housing project in Washington, D.C. A successful businessman, Richard was recruited to help halt the financial collapse of New York's Urban Development Corporation in 1975. Shortly after, Richard chaired the Metropolitan Transportation Authority from 1979 through 1983, advocating for a tax increase to generate greater revenue and created a $8.5 billion financing plan to revive the mass transit system. He also served as the President of the Player Relations Committee for Major League Baseball, working as the chief negotiator for the league. Richard's innovative solutions in New York earned him an appointment as the state's Lieutenant Governor by David A. Paterson in 2009. In 2011, Richard formed the State Budget Crisis Task Force with former Federal Reserve Chair, Paul Volcker, to draw attention to the financial vulnerabilities that state governments may possess. This work resulted in his selection as an advisor to the Governor of Michigan during Detroit's economic rebound in 2019. He believed in the power of information and helped create a boot camp for mid-career journalists at the City University of New York's School of Journalism. These are just a few examples of how, for over 40 years, Richard served the public and left a physical and financial imprint on the residents of New York. Though Richard was never elected to an official position, he played an integral role in maintaining the stability of numerous landmark institutions. He did not believe politics to be a zero-sum game, and saw it was an opportunity to uplift entire communities. He is preceded in death by his son, Steven, and survived by his wife, Kathleen, and children Joe, Michael, Liz, Carrie, and Laura, and 13 grandchildren.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise to recognize the passing of Jonathan Cuneo, a champion of consumer rights and a longtime friend of the House Committee on the Judiciary. After earning his BA at Columbia University and his law degree at Cornell, Jon clerked for Judge Edward Tamm of the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In 1981, after a stint working for the Federal Trade Commission, Jon joined the Judiciary Committee as counsel to the Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law. Under Chairman Peter Rodino of New Jersey, Jon proved himself a trusted advisor on questions of antitrust law and consumer safety. He helped to guide the Committee through its consideration of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and he conducted a wide-ranging investigation of the insurance industry. He was still a young man when he served here, but already Jon was making valuable contributions to the important work of protecting American consumers and small business from large corporate interests. Jon founded his private practice in 1988, and from there he led several ground-breaking civil actions in service of that mission. In the ``Joe Camel'' case, argued in California state courts and successfully settled in 1997, Jon and his team revealed that the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company's advertising campaign was specifically targeting underage children with its promotional cartoon character. For his role in the case, Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) called Jon a ``real American hero.'' On behalf of thousands of defrauded investors in Enron Corp., Jon recovered more than $7 billion in federal court in 2009. It remains the largest settlement of its kind. Apart from his successful private practice, Jon co-founded the Committee to Support Antitrust Laws, the American Antitrust Institute, and the National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys. His commitment to justice and safety for all Americans was equal to none. And as I recall Jon's wide-ranging and successful legal career, Mr. Speaker, I am particularly struck by the lifelong friendship he forged with my predecessor, the late Chairman John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan. Chairman Conyers trusted Jon like few others. On issues like consumer safety, corporate accountability, and access to the courts, the 2 were partners, both dedicated to helping the most vulnerable Americans find justice wherever it could be found. We on the Judiciary Committee will remember Jon fondly. May his memory be a blessing to the friends and loved ones he leaves behind.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 111, the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023. This simple but important legislation would require our regulatory agencies to provide a summary in no more than 100 words and in plain language of proposed rules on Regulations.gov, thus providing the American public with more transparency and easy understanding of new rules and regulations. The Administrative Procedure Act already requires that the public be informed and have the chance to provide feedback to our agencies on the rules that they are contemplating. This bill, though, would bring a new level of transparency to our agencies' hard work by giving the public a simple and easy-to- understand summary of possible new rules that might affect them or their business. I also commend this bill's sponsors for requiring that the summary is made available online. Transparency and accessibility must go hand in hand. This legislation has already passed the Senate. I urge my colleagues to support it and send it to the President for his signature. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation that will provide transparency to the regulatory process. I urge all Members to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the so-called Separation of Powers Restoration Act would completely upend the administrative process by eliminating judicial deference to agencies and by requiring Federal courts to review all agency rulemakings and interpretations of statutes on a de novo basis. More than 30 years ago, the Supreme Court held in Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council, that courts must give ``considerable weight'' to an agency's construction of a statute it administers. This makes sense, because while Congress sets broad policies, we delegate authority to executive agencies because we do not have the expertise to craft technical regulations ourselves, and we rely on these agencies to carry out the policies we enact. Under the Chevron doctrine, courts respect the careful process undertaken by the dedicated professionals at our Federal agencies, many of whom who have decades of experience and vast technical expertise. Courts give deference to an agency's interpretation of its statutory authority if the interpretation is determined to be reasonable. The Chevron doctrine has been the ruling precedent for judicial review of agency decisions for decades. But this legislation would do away with this longstanding precedent--a move that would throw uncertainty into the entire rulemaking process. It would also empower judges to completely override the determination of agency experts, substituting their own judgment regardless of their comparative lack of technical knowledge and understanding of the underlying subject matter for the carefully crafted and scientifically based decisions made by agencies. It is the height of hypocrisy for the party that rails against what it calls judicial activism to support legislation that is the very embodiment of the judicial activism. This legislation would also make the Federal rulemaking process even more time consuming and costly than it already is, forcing agencies to adopt even more detailed factual records and explanations in order to withstand judicial scrutiny, which would further delay the finalization of critical lifesaving regulations. These are regulations that protect the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we consume, and the safety of the products we use. But this legislation is just the latest step in the Republican's decades-long assault on the regulatory process, trying to add hurdle after hurdle on the ability to issue regulations that protect public health and safety, regulations whose benefits consistently outweigh their cost, often by many multiples. Slowing down the rulemaking process for these vital health and safety protections would put the lives of Americans at greater risk. By eliminating judicial deference to agencies, this bill would empower the courts to make public policy from the bench, ignoring the careful consideration and technical expertise of executive agencies. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record two letters: The first from the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, which includes more than 160 diverse labor, consumer, public health, food safety, financial reform, faith, environmental, and scientific integrity groups; and another letter from the Earthjustice organization. Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, June 5, 2023. Dear Representative: The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards (CSS), which includes more than 160 diverse labor, consumer, public health, food safety, financial reform, faith, environmental, and scientific integrity groups representing millions of Americans, strongly opposes the Separation of Powers Restoration Act, H.R. 288. Congress should be looking for ways to strengthen our country's regulatory system by identifying gaps and instituting new safeguards for the public. Unfortunately, this legislation does the opposite by placing even more obstacles before agencies as they work to provide new public health, safety, and financial security protections for the public. The legislation will make our system of regulatory safeguards weaker by enabling judicial policymaking at the expense of agency expertise and congressional authority, thereby resulting in unpredictable outcomes and regulatory uncertainty for all stakeholders. If passed, H.R. 288 would prevent many critical updates to public protections, especially those that ensure clean air and water, safe food and consumer products, safe workplaces, and a stable, prosperous economy. This problematic legislation attempts to reverse a fundamental and well-settled legal principle that has long effectively guided our regulatory system and provided a vital check on judicial overreach. It strives to abolish judicial deference to agencies' statutory interpretations in rulemaking by requiring a court to decide all relevant questions of law de nova, including all questions concerning the interpretation of constitutional, statutory, and regulatory provisions of final agency actions. Such deference was established as bedrock administrative law by the Supreme Court in the 1984 case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council and came to be referred to as Chevron deference. Chevron deference has been upheld by hundreds of federal courts since and has been endorsed by both conservative and liberal Supreme Court justices and federal court judges. In practice, abolishing Chevron deference will make the current problems in our country's regulatory process much worse in several ways. H.R. 288 will lead to even more regulatory burdens and delays, particularly for those ``economically significant'' or ``major'' new rules that provide the greatest benefits to the public's health, safety, and financial security. There is substantial academic literature and expert consensus that intrusive judicial scrutiny of agency rulemaking is one of the main drivers of regulatory paralysis. Thus, increasing litigation risk for agency rules, which is exactly what this bill would accomplish by spawning hundreds of new lawsuits per year, will mean many more missed congressional deadlines and a regulatory process that fails to efficiently and effectively protect the public as Congress requires. This further ``chilling'' of rulemaking will certainly benefit special interests who will further pressure regulators to carve out loopholes, weaken safety standards, or otherwise obstruct new rulemakings with the greatly enhanced threat of a lawsuit waiting in the wings. Of even greater concern, eliminating judicial deference to agency rulemaking would empower reviewing courts to substitute their policy preferences for those of the agency. One of the primary policy rationales for Chevron deference is that agencies have considerable and superior expertise in the regulatory sectors they oversee as compared to generalist judges with far less expertise. Thus, H.R. 288 aims to make it easier for the courts to overturn an agency's highly technical, resource-intensive, and science-based rulemaking without the expertise needed to make such determinations. Further, abolishing Chevron review would actually undermine congressional authority, an irony given the name of the bill. De novo review of the scope and nature of congressional grants of authority to agencies invites courts to create law, ignore congressional intent, or both. In particular, it defeats a deliberate choice by Congress to confer on agencies the authority to resolve complex policy questions based on their expertise and the public input they receive during the rulemaking process. Perhaps the most telling critique of attempts to replace Chevron deference with de novo review comes from former Justice Antonin Scalia, a vocal supporter of Chevron deference during his career and an indication of just how broad the support is for maintaining such deference. Writing for the majority in City of Arlington v. F.C.C., Justice Scalia argued that requiring that ``every agency rule must be subjected to a de novo judicial determination'' without any standards to guide this review would result in an ``open- ended hunt for congressional intent,'' rendering ``the binding effect of agency rules unpredictable and destroy the whole stabilizing purpose of Chevron. The excessive agency power that the dissent fears would be replaced by chaos.'' [City of Arlington, Tex. v. F.C.C., 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1874 (2013).] H.R. 288 aims to achieve an unprecedented and dangerous move away from traditional judicial deference towards a system of enhanced powers for Big Business lobbyists and weakened protections for consumers and working families. We strongly urge opposition to the Separation of Powers Restoration Act, H.R. 288. Sincerely, Coalition for Sensible Safeguards.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerously flawed legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).