Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I place into the Record the case of Biodiversity Associates v. Cables, which contrary to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) ruled that the Daschle bill did not apply to preclude court of appeals review as the legislation's constitutional validity. Biodiversity Associates v. Cable Biodiversity Associates and Brian Brademeyer, Plaintiffs- Appellants, Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society, Plaintiffs, v. Rick D. Cables, in his official capacity as Regional Forester of the Rocky Mountain Region of the U.S. Forest Service; Dale N. Bosworth, in his official capacity as Chief of the U.S. Forest Service; John C. Twiss, in his official capacity as Supervisor of the Black Hills National Forest; U.S. Forest Service, Defendants-Appellees, Larry Gabriel, in his official capacity as Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Agriculture; Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition; Black Hills Forest Resource Association; Meade County, Lawrence County, and Pennington County, all political subdivisions the State of South Dakota, * Defendants-Intervenors-Appellees. * Mr. Cables, Mr. Bosworth and Mr. Gabriel, who are the successors in office of Lyle K. Laverty, Michael Dombeck and Darrell Cruea, respectively, have been substituted as parties pursuant to Fed. R. App. 34(c)(2). no. 03-1002 united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit 357 F.3d 1152; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 1702 (February 4, 2004, Filed) Prior History: Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. (D.C. No. 99-N-2173). Disposition: Affirmed. Counsel: Ray Vaughn of WildLaw, Montgomery, Alabama (Steve Novak of WildLaw, Asheville, North Carolina, with him on the briefs), for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Kevin Traskos, Assistant United States Attorney (John W. Suthers, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Denver, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees. Diane Best, Assistant Attorney General (Lawrence E. Long, Attorney General; Charles D. McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, with her on the brief), State of South Dakota, Pierre, South Dakota, for Defendants-Intervenors-Appellees. Judges: Before Murphy, Circuit Judge, Brorby, Senior Circuit Judge, and McConnell, Circuit Judge. Opinion By: McConnell. For many years, Congress has been unable to come to agreement on nationwide legislation to address the dangers of insect infestation and fire in the national forests. In 2002, however, in a rider to a supplemental appropriations act for the war on terrorism, Congress passed legislation applicable to selected sections of the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota and nowhere else, permitting logging and other clearance measures as a means of averting forest fires. The legislation specifies forest management techniques for these lands in minute detail, overrides otherwise applicable environmental laws and attendant administrative review procedures, and explicitly supersedes a settlement agreement between the Forest Service and various environmental groups regarding management of these lands. The question presented is whether the extraordinary specificity of this legislation, coupled with its displacement of a settlement agreement, amounts to congressional violation of the Constitution's separation of powers, by invading the province of the executive branch, the judicial branch, or both. We hold that it does not. Article IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2 expressly grants Congress ``Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.'' With respect to this power--like most of its enumerated powers--Congress is permitted to be as specific as it deems appropriate. Moreover, settlement agreements between private litigants and the executive branch cannot divest Congress of its constitutionally vested authority to legislate. background The first law involved in this case is the law of unintended consequences. Fire suppression efforts conducted over more than a century in large parts of the West have had the unintended effect of transforming forests from savannah- like grasslands studded with well-spaced large, old, fire- resistant trees, into thicker, denser forests. Prior to the arrival of Europeans, these forests experienced frequent, but relatively mild, forest fires caused primarily by lightning and Native American activity. These fires would clear the forest floor of undergrowth and saplings while leaving the larger trees unscathed. The denser forests produced by fire suppression accumulate more combustible fuel and are more vulnerable to infestations, such as mountain pine beetles, and to fires far more intense and devastating than those of the pre-settlement era. Forestry experts are divided as to the response to these conditions. Some advocate a hands-off approach, allowing fire (outside areas of human habitation) to reconstitute the forests in their natural state; some advocate controlled burns; and some advocate thinning and fuel removal. The role of commercial logging as part of the last approach has been particularly controversial. From 1983 to 1997, the Beaver Park Roadless Area, a relatively pristine portion of the Black Hills National Forest, was free of logging activity, apparently because the land management plan then in place did not allow it. In 1997, however, the Forest Service approved a new Black Hills National Forest plan revision (the ``1997 Revised Plan''), which allowed logging in a significant portion of Beaver Park's 5,109 acres. It subsequently began preparations for a timber sale in an area called the ``Veteran/Boulder Project Area,'' which included most of the Beaver Park land newly authorized for logging. Especially in a part of the area known as Forbes Gulch, a major purpose of the logging was to counter an infestation of mountain pine beetles. The Forest Service proceeded to clear various administrative hurdles in preparation for the Veteran/Boulder timber sale, issuing a final environmental impact statement on the proposed sale and records of decision approving timber harvest both inside and outside the Beaver Park Roadless Area. Several environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and Appellant Biodiversity Conservation Alliance (BCA), objected strenuously to the timber sale. The Beaver Park Roadless Area was one of the last areas in the Black Hills National Forest still eligible for designation as a wilderness, and logging activity would likely disqualify it from being designated as such. The environmental groups were also concerned about the effects that the Veteran/Boulder timber sale would have on the viability of the northern goshawk population in the Forest. Accordingly, they brought administrative challenges to both the particular project and the recently revised plan under which it was approved. The groups met with mixed success in their administrative challenges. Their challenge to the Veteran/Boulder sale was initially denied in its entirety, though the sale was stayed pending review of the Revised Plan itself. Then, on October 12, 1999, the Chief of the Forest Service upheld the 1997 Revised Plan in most respects, but found that there was inadequate support in the record for the conclusion that the Revised Plan's proposed changes would not threaten the viability of several species, including the northern goshawk. He therefore ordered further research into that question. In the meanwhile, the Forest Service did not stop all pending projects, but instead provided interim directions that would apply until the identified defects in the Revised Plan were remedied. As a result, when the stay on the sale expired, the Forest Service went forward and put the timber out for bid. The Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and BCA brought suit challenging the sale in federal district court, claiming that the Forest Service could not rely on an ``illegal'' plan to justify project-level decisions under that plan. Specifically, they argued that the final environmental impact statement's conclusion that the Veteran/Boulder sale would not affect the viability of the northern goshawk was based on the very findings in the 1997 Revised Plan that had been disapproved. In the waning days of the Clinton Administration, in September of 2000, the Forest Service signed a settlement agreement with the plaintiff groups, under which it agreed not to allow any tree cutting in the Beaver Park Roadless Area, at least until the Service approved a new land and resource management plan remedying the defects of the 1997 plan. The settlement was approved by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, which had jurisdiction over the lawsuit because the relevant Forest Service offices were in Colorado. The process of approving a new plan took much longer than anticipated. The record does not reveal whether the mountain pine beetles of western South Dakota were aware of the settlement agreement or participated in the plan revision process, but it is clear that they did not wait for authorization from Washington before undertaking an expanded program of forest resource exploitation. Just two years after the initial Veteran/Boulder environmental impact statement, the mountain pine beetle infestation in this section of the Black Hills had reached epidemic proportions. According to Forest Service estimates, the pine beetles killed 114,000 trees in 2002, as compared to only 15,000 in 1999. This convinced forest managers that immediate harvesting of deadwood and infested trees, which the settlement agreement prohibited, was necessary to guard against further spread of the infestation and potentially disastrous forest fires. Given that approval of a corrected resource management plan was still a long way off, the Forest Service and the local South Dakota interests that shared its concerns had a choice: they could either attempt to obtain consent to the tree cutting from the original parties to the agreement, or with the help of South Dakota's congressional delegation, they could attempt to overturn the settlement agreement's prohibition by legislation. The Forest Service began by trying the consensual approach. Perhaps spurred by the threat of intervention from Congress, the signatories to the settlement met with the Forest Service to discuss changing the agreement in light of the mountain pine beetle problem. The Forest Service reached agreement with the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society, but BCA and Brian Brademeyer, then chair of the Black Hills Sierra Club, refused to agree to proposed modifications in the settlement. Stymied, South Dakota interests turned to Congress for a legislative solution. For some years, Congress had been considering national legislation that would streamline the process of obtaining environmental approval of logging and other clearance projects in fire- and disease-threatened national forests; but these efforts were caught up in the debate over the role of commercial logging in forest restoration. By limiting legislative action to a narrow geographical area, however, and with the acquiescence of some influential environmental groups and the active support of the state's congressional delegation, Congress was able to reach agreement on a bill that would permit logging and other measures in the Beaver Park Roadless Area. In a rider to an unrelated appropriations bill, Congress enacted into law essentially the terms of the modified agreement negotiated between the Forest Service and the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society. See Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Acts on the United States, Pub. L. No. 107-206, Sec. 706, 116 Stat. 820, 864 (2002) (the ``706 Rider'' or ``Rider''). The Rider, which was signed into law on August 2, 2002, required the Forest Service to take a variety of actions that violated the settlement agreement, see, e.g., id. Sec. 706(d)(5), 116 Stat. at 867, and prohibited judicial review of those actions, id. Sec. 706(j), 116 Stat. at 868. It also specifically referred to the settlement agreement, and stated that the agreement should continue in effect to the extent it was not preempted by the Rider. See id., 116 Stat. at 869. After the Rider was passed, BCA and Mr. Brademeyer (hereinafter referred to, jointly, as ``BCA'') went to the federal district court in Colorado to obtain an order requiring continued enforcement of the settlement agreement, claiming that the 706 Rider unconstitutionally trenched on both the executive and judicial branches. The district court denied the motion, and BCA appealed.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I place into the Record a memo from the Congressional Research Service that says that Congress has never passed any legislation that denies to the Federal courts the jurisdiction to adjudicate the constitutionality of an act of Congress. Congressional Research Service Memorandum To: House Committee on the Judiciary, Attention: Perry Apelbaum. From: Johnny H. Killian, Senior Specialist, American Constitutional Law, American Law Division. Subject: Precedent for Congressional Bill. This memorandum is in response to your query, respecting H.R. 3313, now pending before the House of Representatives, as to whether there is any precedent for enacted legislation that would deny judicial review in any federal court of the constitutionality of a law that Congress has enacted, whether a law containing the jurisdictional provision or an earlier, separate law. We are not aware of any precedent for a law that would deny the inferior federal courts original jurisdiction or the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of a law of Congress.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu). (Mr. WU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton). (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) to close on our side. (Ms. BALDWIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, more than anything else, today's debate is about the politics of a national election. Perhaps our sons and daughters have been sent to Iraq based on intelligence we now know was not correct, perhaps millions of Americans are out of work, and many more do not have access to a doctor. Perhaps our seniors cannot afford life- protecting medications, but none of that matters, at least we can today take the time out to beat up on an unpopular minority. Mr. Speaker, that may be good politics, but it demonstrates a dangerous contempt for our system of government. This debate is not really about gay marriage, no matter how long they may talk about it. The courts will or will not declare the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. We do not know that yet. If they declare the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, for those that disagree with them, the remedy is the normal remedy, a constitutional amendment, which I gather we will be debating on this floor in a couple of weeks before we know what the courts do. But this debate is about whether Congress can adopt unconstitutional legislation on any subject and protect that legislation from constitutional challenge by stripping the courts of their jurisdiction to consider any such challenge. We have never done that before in our history, and we should not do that now. No less a conservative icon than Barry Goldwater opposed court stripping bills in previous decades on the subjects of school prayer, school busing and abortion, which were the big issues in those days. He warned his colleagues that, ``The frontal assault on the independence of the Federal courts is a dangerous blow to the foundations of a free society.'' Our former colleague, Bob Barr, the author of the Defense of Marriage Act which this bill purports to protect, had this to say in a letter to the Members of Congress about this bill. ``H.R. 3313 will needlessly set a dangerous precedent for future Congresses that might want to protect unconstitutional legislation from judicial review. During my time in Congress, I saw many bills introduced that would violate the takings clause, the second amendment, the 10th amendment, and many other constitutional protections. The fundamental protections afforded by the Constitution would be rendered meaningless if others follow the path set by H.R. 3313.'' That is from Bob Barr. The distinguished majority leader of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), has already said that if this bill passes he will introduce court-stripping legislation on other subjects. In fact, the likelihood is that language saying the court shall have no jurisdiction to judge the constitutionality of this act will become boilerplate. Just as every rule that we consider in this House has boilerplate language saying that all points of order against this bill are waived, which means the rules of the House do not apply, it will become boilerplate on every bill of doubtful constitutionality. That would render the Bill of Rights meaningless. The 1936 Stalinist constitution of the Soviet Union read wonderfully on paper. It had a long list of Bill of Rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. It was not worth the paper it was written on because there was no means of enforcing those rights. We depend on the courts to enforce our rights against majorities represented in Congress or State legislatures, momentary majorities perhaps. Without the means of the courts enforcing the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights is a nullity. Our Constitution would become like the Soviet constitution, meaningless. We must have a Federal forum to protect liberty, otherwise that liberty will not exist. The due process clause of the fifth amendment, passed after the Judiciary Court Act of 1789, says that no person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Due process of law means there has to be a judicial forum to assert the right and have the judges decide. We are told the State courts will be the forum. The State courts will decide whether a law, a Federal law or a State law, violates the United States Constitution. That means we will have 50 different constitutions, 50 different laws. We say in the Pledge of Allegiance the United States is one Nation, indivisible; not if this bill passes. If this bill and other bills like it pass, we will balkanize the United States. The Constitution will mean one thing in New Jersey, another thing in New York and a third thing in Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is our very system of government and the constitutional system of checks and balances which is under attack with this bill. If the Congress by statute can prevent the Federal courts from applying the Constitution on any subject matter, then the protections of an independent judiciary, the protections of the Bill of Rights, the protections of the United States Constitution, become no more than a puff of smoke. It will, of course, be unpopular minorities, whether religious minorities, political minorities, ethnic minorities, racial minorities, lesbians, gays, whoever is unpopular at the moment, who will lose their rights. There have been many Supreme Court decisions I have found loathsome and wrong, such as Bush v. Gore, and some of the cases invalidating or limiting our civil rights law, but while that makes me question the wisdom of some of the justices, even occasionally the motives, it does not make we want to alter the fundamental structure of our government that has protected our liberties for the last two centuries. The evisceration of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the natural result of this bill, threatens all of us. It is far, far more important than the question of gay marriage, which is not really involved here because that has not been decided by the courts. We are playing with fire with this bill, and that fire could destroy the Nation we love. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), Democratic whip.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds. Mr. Speaker, reference was made before to the Daschle court-stripping bill. There was no such thing. His bill did not court-strip. In fact, in the case of Biodiversity Associates v. Cables, his bill was judged constitutional. If the courts had been stripped of jurisdiction, they could not have done that. The CRS says, ``We are not aware of any precedent for law that would deny the inferior Federal court's original jurisdiction or the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of a law of Congress.'' Let us stop with this nonsense that this is not unprecedented. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a member of the committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington for purposes of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to a worthy organization, one committed to special children and their families. The Moses and Aaron Foundation's significant and enduring efforts deserve the highest praise, as do the philanthropists who have given of themselves to fulfill its mission. The Moses and Aaron Foundation Special Fund for Children is dedicated to assisting children with disabilities and their families with a wide range of programs including social, physical, financial and wheelchair assistance, as well as counseling and guidance. It also provides scholarship funding to educational institutions: collects; purchases; and distributes clothing for children in need and remembers them with presents at holiday time or when hospitalized. In cooperation with Ballys Fitness Centers the Moses and Aaron Foundation under the direction of its President Rabbi Yaacov Kaploun, and Executive Vice President Yehuda Kaploun has been able to establish 27 physical fitness and therapy centers and has arranged for sound and musical equipment in other institutions. The corporate and individual supporters of the Foundation, include Metropolitan Lumber, Bally Total Fitness, Mr. David Buntzman, Mr. & Mrs. Jarred Feldman, Mr. Robert Gans, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Gans, Mr. Avi and Dr. Laura Greenbaum, Mr. and Mrs. David Hirsch, Mr. and Mrs. Ira Rennert, Mr. Eli Rothman, Mr. Mark Selden, and Mr. and Mrs. Clifford Feldstsein. We recognize the special support of Ashley and Liora Herschman, recipients of the Dr. Steven Stowe Acts of Kindness Memorial Award, who by their contributions and kindness have brought happiness and a smile to the faces of hundreds of special children. On Saturday night July 31, 2004 at the Sullivan County Community College, Lock Sheldrake, New York, the Moses and Aaron Foundation under the Honorary Chairmanship of Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, will sponsor its eighth Summer ``Chazak--Strength'' Concert honoring and paying tribute to special and outstanding children, and is produced by STB Jewish Music Productions. The Guests of Honor will be the Special and Outstanding children, many of whom will perform with the entertainers on stage. More than forty organizations and schools serving the physically and mentally disabled children will be represented. The Chazak Concert and the Moses and Aaron Foundation's other programs demonstrate a caring and compassionate concern for the quality and dignity of life of others and merit the appreciation of all those who have benefited from its services. The Moses and Aaron Foundation was founded in memory of Rabbi Dr. Maurice I. Hecht and Aaron Kaploun, both of whom led lives of exemplary community service. It is in this sentiment of communal dedication that the Moses and Aaron Foundation has devoted itself to serving the needs of a unique group in the community. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the Moses and Aaron Foundation, an organization which exemplifies the generosity of spirit in American society.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act. It has been almost 3 years since the September 11 terrorist attacks, and we still do not have sufficiently detailed information about what enters our ports. We know that approximately 6 million shipping containers enter the United States each year, but we do not know what all these containers contain nor do we know what it would cost to inspect all of these containers. We also know that approximately 6- to 7,000 ships enter the United States each year, but that figure refers mainly to deep-draft vessels. How many smaller ships, or break bulk vessels, enter our ports? We do not really know. When this bill was considered in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure last year, I offered an amendment that was accepted by committee, asking the Coast Guard to do a study. I wanted to know a complete breakdown of the number and types of containers and ships that enter the United States each year. I also wanted to know the cost that would be incurred if we were to inspect adequately all of these containers and ships. Once we understand the different elements of what enters our ports, we can establish a better baseline on what we are currently spending on port security. More importantly, we will have a better understanding of how we can improve port security and the cost that will be entailed with each type of improvement. I am pleased that this port security study provision has been included in the final conference report that is before us today, along with additional reporting requirements regarding container security inserted by the Senate. This is a good bill that will authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard. It has good provisions that will enable us to get a better handle on proper security in our ports, and I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, time after time in this body, the interests of the middle-class have come in second to the interests of the special interests. One example is the issue of drug reimportation. Medications in other counties cost 40 percent less than they do here. Even Secretary Tommy Thompson recently acknowledged what Americans know all too well, reimporting prescription drugs from Canada and other industrialized countries is one of the fastest ways Americans can get lower cost drugs. Experts at Boston University estimate Americans would save $60 billion by paying Canadian prices for brand-name drugs. What are we waiting for? Republicans in Congress continue to stall, promoting the false promise of the new prescription drug discount cards as a substitute for reimportation. When the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) offered an amendment in the agricultural appropriation bill in committee that allowed for the safe reimportation of prescription drugs, Republicans tried to block it and failed. Today, that bill is on the floor. It would allow Americans to purchase these prescription drugs from other countries and lower drug costs in a straightforward way. We should pass that amendment. I dare the Republicans to block it, as I know they will, because they are the servants of the pharmaceutical companies, and they are even trying to put that into the treaty with Australia.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the McGovern amendment and in opposition to the pending motion to support the McGovern amendment. Let us remind ourselves what the McGovern amendment says. If we defeat the previous question, we will be able to consider this amendment, and all the amendment says is that a record vote by electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of a vote. Since the majority party here rigged the vote yesterday, rigged the vote for Medicare in November, they are afraid to vote on this amendment, because they want to have the ability to continue to rig the votes. Let us understand what this really means. A Republican senior leadership aide is quoted in this morning's Congress Daily as saying, a senior GOP aide said, ``It was important to defeat the amendment. It is not normal to hold a vote open, but it is not that unusual either. It happens.'' In other words, whenever it is necessary to defeat the amendment or the vote, we will hold the vote open. What does that mean? It means that if you can hold the vote open for as long as necessary to twist arms for days, if necessary, then whoever holds the gavel can never lose the vote. It means it does not matter who the people elect and send here. It does not matter the convictions of people here. All that matters is who holds the gavel. Because if they can keep the vote open forever until the vote goes right, the majority party can never lose the votes. That means there is no democracy in the House. So what we are discussing now is are we going to have democracy in the House, are we going to have a democratic form of government in this country. Because what the Republicans have done by showing a willingness to hold the vote open for 3 hours last November, for 38 minutes yesterday, for 2 days next week, who knows, is when a vote matters, they will not lose it no matter what the votes, because democracy does not matter. For that alone, for destroying democracy in the House, for not being ashamed of it, this party ought to hang its head in shame and ought to surrender in November the right to govern this House until it learns how to be a party in a democracy again.

Mr. NADLER

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