Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, this legislation restores the proper role of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in the maintenance of our national security infrastructure. Let's get the terms of this debate clear before we begin. Anyone who can read will see that this bill does not inhibit the government's ability to spy on terrorists or on suspected terrorists or to act swiftly and effectively on the information we gather. The American people expect that their government will keep us all safe and free. This bill does that. The bill does not require individual warrants of foreign terrorists located outside the United States. That has been the law for three decades; that is still the law. The bill does provide reasonable FISA Court oversight to ensure that when our government starts spying on Americans, it does so lawfully by getting a warrant from the FISA Court. It will put an end to this administration's well-worn ``trust me'' routine. I trust our intelligence community to gather solid intelligence on threats to our Nation. But protecting constitutional rights is not their prime job. That is why we have courts. This bill provides for Congress to receive independent reports on how the act is working and what our government is doing. This administration's penchant for secrecy and aversion to accountability will come to an end, at least in this area. Let me say a word for demands for retroactive immunity for the telecom companies. As many of our colleagues have pointed out, any such discussion is premature. We do not even know what we are being asked to immunize or whose rights would be compromised if we did so. More importantly, Congress should not decide legal cases between private parties; that's for the 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 wipe them without even reviewing the evidence. How dare we have the presumption to decide the rights of allegedly injured parties in the blind. Mr. Speaker, this bill meets every single principle set forth by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. As one of the co-chairs of the caucus' FISA Task Force, I am pleased to support this important bill. It is true to our Constitution. It is true to our values. It is true to our safety. It will keep us safe and free. This bill gives our intelligence agencies the tools they have told us they need to make us safe, and gives the FISA Court the tools it needs to ensure that the extraordinary powers we are giving to the intelligence community are used correctly and consistently with our laws and our Constitution. It's called the separation of powers, with each branch of the government doing what it is supposed to do and acting as a check on the others. FISA exists to ensure that the balance between the needs of intelligence gathering and the protection of the rights of all Americans are balanced. Most importantly, it restores the role of FISA as the exclusive legal basis for foreign intelligence surveillance. No more making it up as you go along. Did the telecoms break the law? Were they acting appropriately? Were the rights of innocent Americans violated? We don't know. How dare we have the presumption to decide the rights of allegedly injured parties in the blind?

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the bill because I believe it does two critical and important things. First, it provides $50 billion to finance military withdrawal from Iraq, to be completed by the end of next year. I voted against the beginning of the war, and I have consistently tried to end America's involvement in the war. Saddam Hussein is gone, there were no weapons of mass destruction, and there was no Iraqi involvement with al Qaeda or with 9/11. Al Qaeda in Iraq is now in shatters and subject to attack by both Shiites and Sunnis and poses no ongoing threat to the United States. We have no stake in the Iraqi civil war, and it is time to end our occupation. I signed a letter to the President back in July with over 60 of my colleagues vowing not to support any more money for the war in Iraq unless it was for the protection and redeployment of our troops. I believe this bill is consistent with that commitment. The time has come to end the war, and the money we provide should be used only for that purpose. The second critical thing this bill does is to end torture by the United States Government. By including in this bill the American Anti- Torture Act, which was introduced by Representative Delahunt and myself, we are saying, once and for all, no more torture. The law now requires the Department of Defense to follow the Army Field Manual, which bars torture or cruel and inhuman procedures such as waterboarding. This bill extends these limits to every U.S. government agency, including the CIA, and ensures a single, uniform, baseline standard for all interrogations of people under U.S. control. In short, that means no more waterboarding, no more clever wordplay, no more evasive answers, and no more uncertainty with regard to what is allowed and what is not allowed. It is time to restore the honor of the United States and to force the administration to act in a manner consistent with the Constitution. When this bill is passed, the President could have two options: He could sign this bill and help bring the war in Iraq to a speedy end. Or he could veto the bill, in which case he will have to explain why he is denying funds for the troops. But we will not vote for further funding without a requirement to withdraw the troops as in this bill. Mr. Speaker, let's end this war and let's end torture. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am committed to the passage of an ENDA that protects lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees. I have been a lead sponsor for proposals like ENDA every year since I became a member of the New York State Assembly 30 years ago. I am a proud original cosponsor of the original ENDA bill that would protect the entire LGBT community. I believe that civil rights are best advanced by bringing forward a bill that adequately protects all members of the LGBT community. While this may be risky, it is not reason to accept defeat before the fact and to leave behind members of the community who desperately need protection against employment discrimination. As we have seen in many States, the failure to include transgender people in civil rights legislation from the beginning makes it more difficult to extend protections later. My own State of New York, which enacted employment protections for lesbians and gays, has yet to extend these protections to the transgender community. The Senate has yet even to introduce its version of ENDA. Indeed, even if Congress were to adopt a noninclusive ENDA, the President has already pledged to veto this legislation. So it is not a question, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, of now choosing to protect a great number of people and leaving behind a smaller number of people as the price of so doing because we cannot pass this legislation into law and protect anyone this year, unfortunately. We must look to the future when we have a President who will support equality. I believe it is important we take a principled stand now and speak with a strong and united voice for equal rights for all Americans, whether they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender in order to maximize the chance that when we can enact an ENDA bill into law, it will be an inclusive bill that protects everyone's rights. And we must better educate lawmakers and the public about the issues of gender identity and expression. While I may disagree with some of my colleagues on strategy, I assure you that we are united in support of the ultimate goal, protection from employment discrimination for the entire LGBT community. No one should underestimate the strength of that common commitment or our dedication to seeing it realized. Transgender Americans, because of a lack of familiarity and understanding, are more likely to face employment discrimination and, therefore, more in need of protection from irrational discrimination that an inclusive ENDA would afford. And removing gender identity from ENDA may also leave lesbian and gay employees vulnerable to discrimination for failing to conform to gender stereotypes. In other words, some employers and courts may take an overly restrictive view that an exclusive ENDA fails to protect lesbians who appear ``too masculine'' or gay men who appear ``too effeminate.'' That is not our intent, nor do we believe it is an accurate reading of the bill, but congressional intent does not always carry the day. Splitting sexual orientation and gender identity disserves the entire LGBT community and invites the kind of legal mischief that has undermined other civil rights laws. The fundamental issue is this: There are still too many places where it is entirely legal to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender employees. We must bring an end to this unfair, unacceptable and un-American situation. When the House considers ENDA today, I will support the amendment introduced by Congresswoman Baldwin to restore the protections from discrimination based on gender identity. Should that amendment fail, I will not be able to vote for the underlying bill because it fails to uphold adequately the American values of fairness, equality and inclusion, but I will continue to fight for a proper ENDA bill that includes all the people who need its help.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I would add, it's somewhat rare in the Judiciary Committee, as my colleague knows. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2106) to provide nationwide subpoena authority for actions brought under the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the complicated debate over this bill is not so complicated. It's a very simple bill, as you heard. There's unanimous agreement on it. It ought to pass. I thank the leadership. I thank the leadership and the minority leadership on the Judiciary Committee for expediting the bill to where it is now. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2106, the Procedural Fairness for September 11 Victims Act of 2007. This bill is substantially identical to H.R. 3921, a bill that the House Judiciary Committee reported by voice vote without amendment on October 24. This legislation would provide immediate procedural relief to the victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, by implementing a technical fix to a bill that this Congress passed in the wake of those horrible events. Eleven days after the September 11 attacks, we passed comprehensive legislation, the Transportation and Systems Stabilization Act. That Act, among other things, created a Victims Compensation Fund to provide relief for victims without the need for litigation. It also allowed victims to opt-out of the fund and seek relief in court. The bill limited jurisdiction over any civil litigation to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. An unintended consequence of our actions, under operation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, was that subpoena power to secure testimony or documents from nonparty witnesses to any litigation has generally been limited to persons and documents located within 100 miles of the Southern District of New York. The law we passed in 2001 did not take this 100-mile rule into account. Unfortunately, many of the events relevant to the September 11 tragedy occurred in Boston, where American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 originated, and in the Washington, DC, area where the Pentagon is located and where American Airlines Flight 77 originated. Both of these locations are far outside the 100-mile limit from the Southern District of New York. The bill before the House today would remedy this problem by providing for nationwide subpoena service for all parties in the litigation, victims, victims' families and defendants, to ensure that all parties involved have an opportunity to obtain the witnesses and evidence they need to obtain a fair hearing. That was Congress' intent, and we should not allow the unintended interplay between the 9/11 legislation and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to undermine that legislative purpose. The bill also makes clear that the existing power of the Federal court under rule 45(c) to quash or modify a subpoena in order to protect a subpoenaed person from undue hardship or expense is maintained. That is the current rule, and the bill makes it clear that this important protection for witnesses will remain. Congress has previously approved nationwide subpoena power in other contexts. For example, nationwide subpoena power is available under the False Claims Act, the Veterans Benefit Act and the Civil RICO statute. This bill has bipartisan support. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent in committee and on the Senate floor. The House version, which is substantively identical to the Senate version, was reported by the House Judiciary Committee by voice vote. Six years ago, Mr. Speaker, Congress and the Nation came together to provide prompt and equitable assistance for September 11 victims. I urge my colleagues to ensure that the laudable goals of that effort are not frustrated by the unintended effect of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in this particular case. I urge the adoption of this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 759, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), marking the 40th anniversary of the Mass Movement for Soviet Jewish Freedom and the 20th anniversary of the Freedom Sunday Rally for Soviet Jewry on the National Mall in Washington, DC. Mr. Speaker, in 1967 the plight of Soviet Jews was severe and largely unknown to the outside world. State-sponsored anti-Zionism and a widespread culture of anti-Semitism made daily life difficult for the millions of Jews living in the Soviet Union. Worst of all, these Jews had no right to leave the country for more welcoming parts of the world, namely, Israel and the United States. Mr. Speaker, in answer to this reality, 1967 saw the rise of an organized movement to rescue the Soviet Jews, the Mass Movement for Soviet Jewish Freedom. Looking back 40 years later, we can all chart the profound success of that movement which lifted hundreds of thousands of people out of persecution and poverty and into freedom. Beginning in 1971, this movement made possible the mass exodus of Soviet Jews from the Soviet Union to the shores of Israel, the United States and elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, I am gratified to represent the largest community of former Soviet emigres in the United States, and I have the great fortune of knowing many of those leaders and entrepreneurs who owe their livelihoods and freedom to the success of that movement organized in 1967. The former Soviet Jewish community of Brooklyn, New York, from Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, Uzbekistan and elsewhere has returned the humanity and kindness shown to them years before in their new capacity as industrious, law-abiding, and dynamic members of American society. In neighborhoods like Brighton Beach, Coney Island and Bensonhurst, you can witness every day how hard they have worked in order to secure happiness for their families and how they strive to give back to the Nation that rescued them from persecution. Mr. Speaker, no discussion of this movement of Soviet Jews would be complete without mention of Jacob Birnbaum, an exceptional leader and human being who worked night and day to bring this issue to the forefront of our minds so many years ago. Earlier this year, I was very proud to introduce a resolution honoring Mr. Birnbaum, and I am pleased that Congress passed it, thereby bringing official recognition to a leader who made an incalculable difference for the lives of many thousands of Soviet Jews and others throughout the world. In addition to the courageous work of Mr. Birnbaum, tribute ought to be paid to the other pioneers and national organizations who fought so strenuously for the liberation of Soviet Jews, people like Malcolm Hoenlein who is now executive vice president of the Conference of Presidents of American Jewish Organizations but who pioneered much of the work in the Soviet Jewish movement. I am pleased today to join with my colleagues to mark the accomplishments of the Soviet Jewry movement and to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Freedom Sunday Rally for Soviet Jews and the 40th anniversary of the founding of the movement to free Soviet Jews. I am proud to have been part of this movement beginning in the late 1960s in many marches and demonstrations and picketings of the Soviet embassy. I was here on the Mall 20 years ago. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Yes. The language was unobjectionable.

Mr. NADLER. I will answer to the best of my knowledge. I don't know what we're doing now. I'm not part of the leadership. And as I said, I just happened to be walking here. I don't know why the bill isn't back here now. But I know it will be in the next week or so.

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Two points. One, what was just said about that motion to recommit, the contents of the motion to recommit, that nothing shall be construed as barring, tapping or wiretapping, whatever the language was, bin Laden, Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, et cetera, was completely unobjectionable. Indeed, it was totally superfluous. Had that motion said the motion is to recommit the bill to committee to amend it to include these words, and to report the bill back forthwith so we could have continued the debate, we would have accepted that amendment. We would have said fine. It doesn't change anything. Fine. But, as you know, the amendment said report back promptly, which would have entailed at least a 2-week delay. That's why the bill was pulled, not because of the subject matter, but because of the word ``promptly.''

Mr. NADLER. I will say two things. Number one, the RESTORE Act, the bill that was pulled from the floor, number one takes care of that technological problem, just as the bill that was passed in August does, by updating and making clear that foreign-to-foreign communications that come through a server in the United States do not need a warrant. So that's not an issue because this bill does it. Second of all, let me just make the two points. And second of all, I think I heard you say, both of you, somebody here, that if you were tapping some terrorist abroad and he called into the United States and you heard him talk about terrorism with somebody in the United States, that you could not tap that, you could not use that information. That's simply not true.

Mr. NADLER. Will the gentleman yield at this point?

Mr. NADLER. Well, we found out, by the way we thought the Senate was going to pass the bill the next day. It turns out they haven't got their act together, so we have a little more time.

Mr. NADLER. Had it said forthwith, it would have been, and I shouldn't speak for the leadership but that's what they were saying at the time, we would have accepted it. But because it said promptly, which the Parliamentarians have told us would entail a considerable delay.

Mr. NADLER. I can't because I don't know that. I don't know that. Presumably sometime in the next 2 weeks. But would you yield now?

Mr. NADLER. Yes, it was going to pass a different bill. We wanted to pass a bill before they did, so that's why we were in a hurry. But getting back to the point we said a few minutes ago, I don't have the benefit of the language. I know you have it there from the manager's amendment which I haven't seen, or the context. But I do know the following: The whole point, Admiral McConnell is quite correct when he says, obviously, if you're tapping whoever in a foreign country, you don't know who he's going to call. You're tapping that one point. You're tapping Mohammed in Karachi because you know that he, you suspect he's a terrorist that's involved. If he calls someone else abroad no one thinks you need a warrant or anything else. Under the bill, if he calls someone in the United States, either you hear it, you can't help hearing it. Either that conversation is innocent or it's involved with something that makes you suspicious of terrorism. If it's innocent, you have to engage in minimization procedures so you don't unduly and inadvertently violate the privacy of some American for an innocent conversation. If it's not innocent, then you, with that information, you can continue listening and if necessary you can get a warrant. And that's the general design of the amendment.

Mr. NADLER. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. And I wasn't planning to debate this; I just happened to be walking through the Chamber and I heard what you were saying. People are entitled to their opinions, but they're not entitled to misquote what the bill does, which is what I've been hearing. First of all, it is quite correct, as the gentlelady from New Mexico said, that the FISA law needed to be updated.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill which contains many excellent provisions. But I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar and Subcommittee Chairman Costello, in particular, for including in the manager's amendment two provisions that are particularly important to me. The first requires the FAA to conduct a study to determine if temperature standards are necessary to protect crew members and passengers from excessive heat on board aircraft. We've all heard the news reports about passengers on planes grounded for hours sometimes in the heat without fresh air and necessary supplies. The Association of Flight Attendants reports that many crew members have had to work in dangerously high temperatures during ground operations for long periods of time with no ability to obtain relief. Now, this is not just a matter of discomfort. Heat-related illness can be severe, can even lead to death, particularly for sensitive populations. My first inclination was to require that the temperature in the aircraft must not exceed 80 degrees during ground operations, but various operational issues make it clear that such a requirement would be premature. I hope that this study will inform Congress of what options are available to us and that it will force the FAA to take seriously this serious problem. The second provision would mandate the FAA to complete a study of the cabin air quality that we required in the last FAA reauthorization bill passed in 2003. Aircraft in the current commercial fleet are equipped with air circulation systems that bleed air off the engines and are subject to contamination of the air by engine oil and hydraulic fluids. We continue to hear reports from crew members and passengers who have developed long-term neurological problems after documented exposure to oil smoke in the cabin or on the flight deck. In the last reauthorization bill, we included a study to sample and analyze the air on board the cabin aircraft. Unfortunately, the FAA never completed the study. My preference, again, would be to set standards for cabin air quality now or to require that aircraft use certain filters that can clean the outside air more efficiently. But every time we raise this issue, we hear that the problem has not been properly documented. It is time, and this bill requires that the FAA complete this research. I would like to thank Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Costello for their support of these provisions and for including them in the manager's amendment. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance these critical workplace and consumer protections, so that people can breathe the air and not faint from the heat. And I urge support for this bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be in Washington, DC on September 10, 2007 when the House considered H. Res. 643, commemorating the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I ask that the Record reflect that had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 866. It is hard to believe that 6 years have passed since that fateful day when terrorists struck the World Trade Center in my district in New York, and hijacked planes that crashed into the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania. September 11th exposed significant vulnerabilities in our homeland security, and much of the last 6 years has been spent trying to fill these holes and make us more secure. I am proud of the progress we have made to address homeland security, Earlier this year, Congress passed H.R. 1 finally implementing all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Included in that bill was a provision I championed to fill the gaps in our port security system. This provision requires that within five years every shipping container must be scanned before coming to the United States so that terrorists cannot smuggle deadly weapons into this country through our ports. H.R. 1 also created a new rail and transit security program, increased risk- based homeland security grant funding, included measures to secure loose nuclear material overseas, and required 100 percent screening of air cargo. Despite the progress that has been made, we still have not fulfilled our moral obligation to the victims of the September 11th terrorist attack, which includes not just the people who live and work and go to school in the area around Ground Zero, but also the emergency response workers who came from all over the country to aid in the recovery and who are now sick as a result of exposure to World Trade Center toxic dust. This week, I, along with Congresswoman Maloney and Congressman Fossella introduced essential, new legislation that ensures that everyone exposed to World Trade Center toxins, no matter where they may live now or in the future, would have a right to high-quality medical monitoring and treatment, and access to a re-opened Victim Compensation Fund for their losses. Whether you are a first responder who toiled without proper protection; or an area resident, worker or student who was caught in the plume or subject to ongoing indoor contamination; if you were harmed by 9/11, you would be eligible. This bill builds on the best ideas brought to Congress thus far and on the infrastructure already in place providing critical treatment and monitoring. What is also troubling is that 6 years have passed, and the Environmental Protection Agency has yet to conduct a comprehensive testing and cleanup program to remove World Trade Center dust from area buildings. A recent GAO report confirms the horrible reality that to this day, due to their negligence and inaction, the EPA cannot say with certainty that even a single building in the area is free of World Trade Center contamination. As such, we cannot know how many more people will become sick because of lingering environmental toxins in their homes, workplaces and schools. The Administration must act immediately to design and implement a new, proper testing and cleaning program. For many of us, the effects of 9/11 are always present in our hearts and minds. But I hope that the 9/11 anniversary will serve as a reminder to others that we must fulfill our moral obligation to remove the threat of 9/11 contamination and to provide health care for those who are sick as a result of it. My colleagues and I will not stop fighting until this obligation is met.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, 1 week ago today, we marked the sixth anniversary of the tragic events of September 11, 2001. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today about an issue that faces not just my district, where the attack on the United States occurred, where the World Trade Center once stood, but our entire Nation. I am honored to be here today to support legislation sponsored by Carolyn Maloney and myself and others. Carolyn has been such a strong advocate for the living victims of 9/11. I also want to thank Chairmen George Miller and Frank Pallone for the recent hearings they have held on this issue, one last week and one earlier today. I am pleased to announce that yesterday, along with Congresswoman Maloney and others, I introduced essential new legislation that would ensure that everyone exposed to World Trade Center toxins, no matter where they live now or in the future, would have a right to high- quality medical monitoring and treatment and access to a reopened victim compensation fund for their losses. Whether you are a first responder who toiled without proper protection, who came to help in the rescue and recovery from New York, from elsewhere in New York or from elsewhere in the country, or whether you're an area resident worker or student who was caught in the plume, or subject to ongoing indoor contamination, if you were harmed by the environmental effects of 9/11, you would be eligible. This bill builds on the best ideas brought to Congress thus far, and on the infrastructure already in place providing critical treatment and monitoring. Mr. Speaker, when the World Trade Center collapsed on September 11, 2001, the towers sent up a plume of poisonous dust that blanketed Lower Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn, Queens, and New Jersey. A toxic cloud of lead, dioxin, asbestos, mercury, Benzene, PCBs, PAHs and other hazardous contaminants swirled around the site and around Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn and Jersey City as rescue workers labored furiously in the wreckage, many without adequate protective gear. Thousands of first responders inhaled this poisonous dust before it settled onto and into countless homes, shops and office buildings where it remains to this day. Mr. Speaker, I've always said that there were two coverups conducted here, two coverups conducted by the administration. The first coverup was that the air was okay, that no one would get sick from the exposure to World Trade Center dust at or near Ground Zero. The administration denied the air was toxic and insisted that no one would get sick. They lied. They lied deliberately to the American people, to the people of New York, to the first responders. They said the air was safe, when they had test results saying it was toxic. As a result, tests at Mt. Sinai Hospital published in a peer reviewed medical study just about a year ago revealed that of the 10,000 first responders tested, over 70 percent suffer from lung disease at this point, or at least as of last year. We have seen this in test after test and study after study. All the literature goes in the same direction. Thousands of people are sick who need not have been sick. Thousands of people are sick because the administration lied, and because OSHA failed to do its job. Mr. Speaker, there was air pollution at the site of the Pentagon attack on this country also. But OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, enforced the law. Nobody was permitted to work on the site without wearing proper respiratory protective gear, as the law demands. Mr. Speaker, nobody is suffering lung damage or respiratory disease today as a result of participating in the rescue and recovery efforts at the Pentagon. But in Lower Manhattan, somebody made a deliberate decision not to enforce the occupational safety and health laws. OSHA did not enforce the laws. People were permitted on the site without respirators. Indeed, public officials went to the site and wore only masks, paper masks, which were worse than useless, we are told by the scientists. Many workers worked without respirators. Many workers had no access to respirators. Police officers have testified they had no access to respirators. Many workers who did have access to respirators believed the assurances they got that the air was safe and didn't use the respirators because they got in the way of the work. The result is, thousands of people are sick and some are dead, unnecessarily, as a result of the malfeasance, the deliberate malfeasance of the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, two things establish a moral obligation on the Federal Government. One, the people who were hurt, the people who are sick as a result of participating in the clean up, the people who are sick as a result of living in Lower Manhattan or working in Lower Manhattan, the government workers who returned to government offices in the Securities and Exchange Commission or other government agencies and worked there before the buildings had been cleaned and are now sick as a result, are sick for two reasons. They are sick because of the terrorist attack on this country, and they are sick because their government lied to them and urged people to go back into unsafe environments and told people things were safe when they weren't. We owe, the Federal Government owes a moral debt to all these victims. Because they are victims of a terrorist attack on this country, the words of Abraham Lincoln apply. Abraham Lincoln said that it is the duty of all of us to care for him who shall have borne the battle. The people who are sick today with deadly illnesses, with long- term illnesses, are just as much victims of the terrorists as those 3,000 people who were killed on 9/11, and the United States Government owes them long-term health care, monitoring and treatment because they are victims of the attack on the United States. Al Qaeda didn't attack them individually. They attacked United States. They happen to be the individual victims. Secondly, they are victimized because, many of them, perhaps most of them would not have gotten sick if the Federal Government had not lied to them and if the Federal Government had not decided not to enforce the occupational safety and health laws. That too establishes a moral obligation to care for the victims of the Federal malfeasance. Now, that is all the first coverup. But as a result of the Mt. Sinai study, as a result of other studies that have come out all within the last year as a result of some newspaper reports, that coverup has unraveled. Almost nobody today still maintains that these people aren't sick as a result of 9/11. The only question is how best to deal with that sickness. And the answer, we believe, is that the Federal Government should adopt the bill, Congress should adopt the bill that Congresswoman Maloney and I and others introduced that provides two things: one, reopen the victims compensation fund for people whose health was damaged, who weren't immediately killed, but whose lives were perhaps shortened, whose health was damaged as a result of 9/11 of the attack on our country. And, secondly, provide for long-term medical monitoring and treatment through the centers of excellence, through the institutions that have treated people and through a network of institutions that would be, not formed, but would be brought into a network around the country that would be fed the latest data on diagnosis and treatment. So this legislation ought to be adopted. Secondly, Senator Clinton and I have introduced legislation of a more immediate nature to appropriate $1.9 billion for the next 5 years to provide for this medical monitoring and treatment in case we cannot immediately adopt the long-term legislation that Congresswoman Maloney and I have introduced. The mayor of New York estimates that the annual cost of treatment for the first responders is now about $198 million and will increase to $413 million in the next few years as more and more people need more and more treatment. But I said there were two coverups. The second coverup is the failure of EPA to clean up indoor contamination. When the World Trade Center collapsed, it released, as I said, thousands of tons of toxic dust and debris. Much of it settled on the ground and in the air outdoors; much of it blew in through windows and into heating vents and air conditioning vents, into buildings, all throughout Manhattan and Queens and Brooklyn and perhaps New Jersey. Now, nature cleans up the outdoor air. The rain washes the toxins away. The wind blows them away. Nature does not clean up the indoor air. Only people can clean up the indoor air. Only people can clean up the residue of those toxins that are still there. And if they are not properly cleaned up, they will stay there, and they will stay there forever, poisoning people on a daily basis. And that is exactly what we have reason to believe is going on. Now, the EPA said people should clean up on their own. Under the Giuliani administration, the City of New York said landlords should clean up the exterior surfaces of buildings and the public spaces in the buildings but let the tenants, individual tenants, individual residents, individual small business owners and large business owners, to clean up their space, without providing any help or expertise to do so. And, of course, most of these spaces were not properly cleaned. The EPA and New York City Department of Health put on its Web site very early on that if you came home and you saw World Trade Center dust in your apartment, clean it up with a wet mop and a wet rag. And if there is a lot of dust, if it's really thick, consider using a HEPA filter. Now, this advice is illegal because the law says you may not remove or move asbestos-containing material unless you are trained and certified and licensed to do so and unless you are wearing a moon suit, proper protective equipment. OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, ruled that all World Trade Center dust had to be presumed to be asbestos-containing material because there were thousands of tons of asbestos in the World Trade Center. We know that. So this advice said illegally move this material. Now, when we had a hearing in our subcommittee, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, back in June, I inquired of Christie Todd Whitman, the former head of EPA at the time, I said, Governor Whitman, when you were administrator of EPA, if you were told that some company or some individuals who were not trained to do so were removing asbestos-containing material, what would you do? She said, We would certainly have arrested them. I said, If you were told they were disposing of that material in the garage, in the regular garage, what would you have done? We would certainly have arrested them, she said. But EPA and the City Department of Health put on their Web site the advice to do exactly that to every individual who saw the World Trade Center dust in their own apartment. So this was illegal advice, but it was also unsafe advice. It was also unsafe advice because if you remove asbestos-containing material without wearing proper respiratory protection, you are guaranteed to inhale some of that, and that's poison. That's toxic. Not to mention all the other toxins that we know were in that dust. And, also, if you are not trained properly how to do this, you are not going to do a thorough job. You may think you have cleaned your apartment or your office, but the material is still going to be in the drapes. It's still going to be in the carpets. It's still going to be in the porous wood surfaces. It's still going to be in the HVAC system. It's still going to be behind the refrigerator or the stove. And every time the baby crawls on that carpet for the next however many years, the baby is going to release some into the atmosphere and is going to inhale it. So these indoor spaces are unsafe to work or live in. And we are daily poisoning people. How many such spaces? Tens of apartments, hundreds of apartments, thousands of apartments, tens of thousands of apartments? We don't know. Over what geographic area does this spread? We don't know because EPA, the Federal Government, never did any proper testing. Now, they say they did testing, but the EPA's own Inspector General says it was nonsense. The EPA says it did a cleanup in 2002, an indoor cleanup, on a voluntary basis of several thousand apartments. But the EPA's own Inspector General said it was a phony cleanup for any number of reasons I won't go into now. And every time that anyone qualified has looked at this, they have labeled what has been done hazardous and phony. At my request, back in February and March of 2002, the EPA's ombudsman held public hearings in lower Manhattan to talk about the indoor contamination to examine this. What did the EPA do? They dismantled the ombudsman's office after telling people not to attend the hearing. The EPA Inspector General released a report in August of 2003 labeling the EPA's actions atrocious and its cleanup phony. What did the EPA do? It ignored the recommendations. Under pressure from Senator Clinton and myself and others, the EPA in 2004 formed a scientific advisory panel to look into this and to advise us what ought to be done. But when the scientific advisory panel of people hand picked by the EPA started coming to the conclusions similar to what I have been stating here, what did the EPA do? Did they listen? No. They dismantled the panel and they didn't permit them to issue a report. The administration has promised us reports; we haven't seen them. What has to be done? What has to be done is what the Inspector General recommended 4 years ago. What the Inspector General said was that there has to be active testing of indoor spaces, several hundred indoor spaces, in concentric circles from the World Trade Center. Why concentric circles? To see how far the contamination expanded and still exists. Now, the EPA, when they talked about their cleanup, they established an arbitrary line. They said, We consider that the problem is limited to lower Manhattan below Canal Street, as if there were a 30,000-foot- high wall at Canal Street blocking the plume from going north of Canal Street, as if there were a 30,000-foot wall across the East River and the Hudson River protecting New Jersey and Queens and Brooklyn. Well, I've never seen any evidence of that 30,000-foot wall. We have to assume that the toxins went in these places too. We have to find out where they went. That's why the Inspector General instructed us that we should properly inspect several hundred indoor spaces, randomly selected indoor spaces, in concentric circles from the World Trade Center to see where the contamination extended to. And it may be that in one direction it extends three blocks and in another direction three miles. It may be, as I said, that we are talking about a few hundred apartments or tens of thousands. We don't know. But wherever that extended, wherever the tests in the concentric circles show that those toxins are present indoors, we must draw lines on the map, and then we must go into every single building in those geographic areas, however small or large the areas may be, and professionally clean them up. This may take several hundred million dollars; it may take several billion dollars. We won't know the extent of it until we do the testing. But as long as we don't do that testing, we have to assume, from everything we know, that hundreds, maybe thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people are being poisoned daily and will come down 10 years from now with mesothelioma, with lung cancer, asbestosis, and other dreaded diseases because they are living or working in contaminated environments. And we know something else about these kinds of contaminated environments. We know the effects of the toxins are cumulative. That is to say, if you waved a magic wand tomorrow and cleaned up all the contaminated indoor spaces, a certain number of people, we don't know how many, we don't know whom, but a certain number of people, because of the failure over the last 6 years to clean up these indoor spaces, because they worked there for 6 years, are unavoidably destined to come down with these dreaded diseases because we didn't clean it up 6 years ago. But if we don't wave that magic wand, if we don't conduct a proper cleanup, then a much larger number of people will come down with lung cancer, mesothelioma, asbestosis, and so forth 10 and 15 years from now. And the liability, the tort liability, of billions, tens of billions, maybe hundreds of billions of dollars, will mount up and mount up. Now, this second coverup is still covered up in the sense that the government doesn't admit the problem. On the first coverup that thousands of people are sick, almost nobody denies it anymore. We know that. The only question is what we do about it, and I spoke about that a few minutes ago. We should make sure that people are plugged into centers of excellence and networks and we should pass legislation affording them long-term health care, monitoring and services. But this problem that we still have, people who will come down with these dread diseases unnecessarily because they are being exposed on a daily basis to World Trade Center toxins that were never cleaned up, this is still unadmitted by the EPA or by the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to be true to what we have said about the heroes of 9/11, if we are going to be true to what Abraham Lincoln said when he said that it is our duty to care for him who shall have borne the battle, we must do two things: We must provide for the long- term monitoring and health care by passing the bill that Carolyn and others and I introduced yesterday. We must also demand that EPA implement a proper indoor testing and cleaning program. Not a cleanup that the EPA's own scientific advisory panel says is a joke and a fraud, not a cleanup that the EPA's Inspector General says is woefully inadequate, but a proper cleanup to test buildings thoroughly, to test for all pollutants, not just for one or two, and that is not limited by arbitrary geographic boundaries in a way that allows the EPA to minimize its responsibility. Mr. Speaker, for the past 6 years, we have demanded that the EPA, that this administration, fulfill its legal mandate to protect the public health by telling the truth about post-9/11 air quality and by implementing a scientifically sound testing and cleanup program to address indoor contamination. They have absolutely failed on both fronts. The Federal Government has incurred a heavy moral liability because the blood of many of the people who will die early because of these diseases lies on the hands not only of the terrorists but of the administration officials who lied to the people about the conditions and therefore caused people to work in unsafe environments and who are continuing to allow people to work today in unsafe environments. If we are to be true to the survivors and the heroes of 9/11, we must learn something of this nightmare so that, God forbid, if there is a disaster, natural or manmade, we will protect the innocent rather than allowing our malfeasance and carelessness to shorten the lives of thousands of people. Now, when we have talked about this in the past, some people have said, and Christie Todd Whitman, the former administrator of EPA has said, the fault for all the people who are suffering and dying is the fault of the terrorists. Of course that is partially true. If the terrorists hadn't attacked us, none of these people would be sick. But it is the job of government and of government officials to minimize damages, to mitigate damages, to make sure that the number of people who get sick and die because of a terrorist attack is the fewest possible. Not to act in such a way that thousands of people who would have been fine had it not been for the malfeasance of government are not going to be fine. So for that it is the terrorists' fault but it is also the fault of these government officials. And that is another reason why the government has a heavy moral responsibility to clean up the indoor environment so that people stop being further exposed to the toxins so that we put a halt to further numbers of people getting sick from this. And, secondly, the government has a heavy moral responsibility to help those who have lost their jobs because they can no longer breathe, who are getting sick, who are sick, to minimize their damages by making sure that their health care is not a problem, by enacting legislation to provide for long-term health care and monitoring. So I thank you for yielding to me. I hope that these rather harsh words but realistic words and absolutely truthful words will get some response from an administration that has been completely callous toward the survivors and has paid only lip service toward the survivors, and I hope that we can redeem the moral values that we all share on behalf of the Federal Government by doing the right thing in the future on this if we have not done so in the past, which we have not.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, when the World Trade Center collapsed on September 11, 2001, the towers sent up a plume of poisonous dust that blanketed Lower Manhattan. A toxic brew of lead, dioxin, asbestos, mercury, benzene, and other hazardous contaminants swirled around the site of the disaster as rescue workers labored furiously in the wreckage, many without adequate protective gear. Thousands of first responders, residents, area workers, students, and others from around the country inhaled this poisonous dust as it settled onto and into countless homes, shops, and office buildings. Now, 6 years later, there is no doubt that thousands of people are sick from World Trade Center contamination. A study released in September 2006 by Mt. Sinai Hospital found that 70 percent of the more than 9,000 first responders studied suffer health problems related to their work at Ground Zero. This number does not include the Stuyvesant High School students whose school sat near piles of debris from the towers, the nearby residents whose apartments still contain poisonous dust, or the thousands of people who work in offices that were never properly cleaned. Abraham Lincoln once said that we must ``care for him who shall have borne the battle.'' And so we should. Today, I, along with my colleagues, am introducing essential, new legislation that ensures that everyone exposed to World Trade Center toxins, no matter where they may live now or in the future, would have a right to high-quality medical monitoring and treatment, and access to a reopened Victim Compensation Fund for their losses. Whether you are a first responder who toiled without proper protection; or an area resident, worker or student who was caught in the plume or subject to ongoing indoor contamination; if you were harmed by 9/11, you would be eligible. This bill builds on the best ideas brought to Congress thus far and on the infrastructure already in place providing critical treatment and monitoring.