Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to mark 50 years of enduring marriage between Debra and Edward Sullivan. High school sweethearts who married on September 27, 1975, at St. Joseph's Church in Babylon, New York. Today, we honor a love that only a very few are fortunate enough to celebrate in their lifetime. Edward, or Eddie as all know him, son of Florence and John Sullivan, and Debra, or Debbie, daughter of Dolores and Ronald Sup, have together built a life grounded in love, patience, and respect. From Eddie's early beginnings as a clammer on the Great South Bay, together they have shared a lifetime of memories that serve as a model for all of us to follow. Proud parents to Dr. Lauren Sullivan Goddard, and grandparents to Gavin and Reese Goddard, the Sullivans have always put family first in their lives. Godparents to Matthew Jansen, they have always served as mentors and the glue that keeps their family together and their traditions alive. Never far from the ocean, the Sullivans' shared love of boating and the sunshine has always kept them active and enjoying all the South Shore of Long Island has to offer. While many days can seem routine--dinner at 5, dog walks with Debbie's sister Lynn at 6, Jeopardy at 7 followed by Wheel of Fortune-- they have always found ways to keep their bond fresh and new. From vacations to the Florida Keys to Montana, Alaska, and beyond, they keep the adventure going. Mr. Speaker, if you were to crack open a dictionary and find the ``American Dream,'' you would find Debbie and Eddie Sullivan. For decades, Eddie worked tirelessly as a union carpenter and Debbie as a supervisor at Marchon Eyewear--careers that allowed them to build a beautiful home in their shared hometown of West Islip, New York. Together, they put their pride and joy, Lauren, through college and pharmacy school to achieve her doctorate, a milestone that is celebrated universally throughout their family. Through it all, Debbie and Eddie have upheld their vows to care for each other through sickness and health. No matter the circumstances, they always stand by each other. The Sullivans have survived many trials, but their unwavering care and commitment have defined their 50 years together. Mr. Speaker, we all could learn something from Deb and Ed Sullivan. They are truly upstanding New Yorkers who carry themselves with the spirit of hard work and pride, and who have perfected this commitment to each other. They are truly blessed to have a strong marriage and family. At a time when our Nation is so fraught and divided, it is comforting to know that we have neighbors like the Sullivans among us. They are the best America has to offer, and I ask all my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Sullivans on this momentous achievement and in wishing them many more years of health and happiness.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, four Republicans saved this House from disgrace. We almost passed a resolution to remove a Member from committees for the sin of exercising free speech. Charlie Kirk was a prominent figure, beloved by many, disliked heartily by others. If the First Amendment means anything, it means the ability to say anything we want, short of actionable libel, with respect to any subject. It even means, according to the Supreme Court in the Brandenburg decision in 1969, the ability to advocate violence except in a manner calculated to induce immediate violence. We forget the First Amendment at our peril. It is the keystone of our liberties, and we almost disgraced ourselves by traducing it a few minutes ago. I am glad we did not.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Alison Cohen for two and a half years of outstanding service to the constituents of New York's 12th Congressional District. A native of Northern Virginia, Alison attended William & Mary University, where she received a bachelor's degree in Global Governance and Community Engagement. After graduating, she joined the Teach for America program and moved to New Orleans to work as a middle school math teacher in a public school. For the next three years, she served as a teacher and mentor for hundreds of students. I know she keeps in touch with some of her former pupils who still recognize the impact that she made on their lives. Alison's skills from her time as a teacher can be seen during the many meetings that she has with student groups, where she is able to capture the attention of students and skillfully answer their questions in a thoughtful and accessible way. Alison's experience working in public education in Louisiana inspired her to enter policy work to help address the systemic inequities that she saw impacting her students' lives. She began working as a legislative assistant for Louisiana State Representative Aimee Freedman. During her time working in the State Legislature, she worked on many issues impacting everyday Louisianans. One of her key accomplishments was helping shepherd Representative Freedman's bill to eliminate the ``pink tax'' on diapers and menstrual products and other goods, which unfairly disadvantages women and children. This legislation was signed into law in 2021 and is an example of Alison's longstanding commitment to helping support women and families through policy. After working as a policy analyst for the Louisiana Budget Project, Alison returned to the D.C. area and began working as a Legislative Assistant for Congresswoman Elaine Luria (D-VA). In 2023, I was lucky to have her join my Washington, D.C. Office as a Legislative Assistant. Over her two and a half year career in my office, Alison covered many issues, including Healthcare, Reproductive Rights, Education, and Social Security. During her time in my office, Alison held hundreds of meetings with stakeholder groups from across the district, serving as a representative for my office in many photos with groups. She always brought her knowledge and compassion to these meetings and often showed her unique talent of being able to quickly learn the names of everyone in her meetings. Supported by her afternoon Diet Cokes, Alison assisted with many of my key legislative priorities over the past few years. She worked diligently to support the implementation of my Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, working to ensure it was protected in the appropriations process, and helping to organize an amicus brief supporting the bill. She has also been a champion of my bill, the Living Donor Protection Act, which received 225 cosponsors in the 118th Congress due to Alison's hard work. Her steadfast and compassionate work with members of the organ transplant community has been inspiring to see. Alison has also worked on many other health issues, including supporting my longstanding work to secure funding for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). She has also worked closely with stakeholders in the district to support my longstanding work on the World Trade Center Health Program. Alison serves as a key bridge between my office and the many hospitals, health centers, and stakeholders in our district. While working in my office, Alison completed her master's in Health Law and Strategy from New York University, helping to expand her understanding of the healthcare system, especially in the legal context. Her ability to navigate both school and work demonstrates her flexibility and willingness to take on new challenges. Alison has also been an active part of our office culture, helping to mentor many staff and interns; she was always available to offer support and feedback. I will miss her positive presence in the office, especially around birthdays and other celebrations. As Alison moves to her new position in Federal Affairs at Callen- Lorde Health system in New York, I am glad to know she will continue to serve the people of the 12th District. I look forward to seeing where her career will take her and thank her for her excellent service.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my Greek Orthodox constituents to welcome His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to our Nation's Capital. I welcome him to Washington, D.C. and congratulate him for winning the Templeton Prize, a distinguished award received by other religious leaders such as the Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu. The prize honors those who have spent a lifetime, as Patriarch Bartholomew has devoted to Sir John Templeton's vision of using the power of science to examine the deepest questions of humankind and our way in the universe. Born in Turkey, Patriarch Bartholomew studied at institutions across Europe and even here in the United States at Yale and Georgetown. Now, the primary spiritual leader of the Orthodox Christian church, and a figure of global importance, he has addressed the World Economic Forum, UNESCO, the United Nations, and the European Parliament. He has stood out as a leader bridging divides and finding common ground, seeking peace throughout the world, and confronting global conflict with personal experience and a unique perspective. A peacemaker through and through, Patriarch Bartholomew said that ``Human conflict may be inevitable in our world; but war and violence are not. If our age will be remembered, it may be for those who dedicated themselves to the cause of peace.'' Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect that we welcome Patriarch Bartholomew and recognize his life, his career, and the global impact of his teachings. We are grateful for his lifetime of service brokering peace and advancing our common interests, and we welcome him to Washington, D.C.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Daniel Rubin for his outstanding service to the House of Representatives, to the House Judiciary Committee, and to the constituents of New York's 12th Congressional District. Daniel Rubin is an exceptional talent, with years of experience working at the highest levels of Congress on the most crucial legal issues of the day. He has a razorsharp mind, an inquisitive nature, and a unique ability to accurately identify the key question that must be addressed in any given situation. Daniel Rubin has worked directly on the Judiciary Committee and the Ways and Means Committee and has worked with Members who served on the Budget, Oversight, and Education and the Workforce committees. It is truly rare to find someone with his breadth and depth of experience working in the House for as long as Daniel has. That is a testament to his commitment to public service and his ability to gain the trust of multiple Members of Congress from diverse backgrounds. Not all positions on the Hill are equal, and Daniel has had perhaps the toughest assignment. He routinely handles the most challenges questions put to lawmakers by the Capitol Hill press corps. They are trained to find vulnerabilities in any argument and expose them to the public. They are tenacious and intelligent, and Daniel does an excellent job working with them every day to get them the information they seek and to do so in a way that is most beneficial to the Members and Committees he is working for. It is not an easy task, but Daniel does it with exceptional skill. While working with us he has maintained excellent relationships across a broad spectrum of writers, editors, and producers. He reads voraciously and is always well informed and well prepared for the challenges presented by his work. He is an excellent writer and a master communicator. I enjoyed working closely with Daniel on the House Judiciary Committee and in my personal office for the past several years. Together we worked with dozens of Members of Congress to help shape our strategy, messaging, and legal approach in countless hearings and markups. We identified the most powerful messages and amplified them in the press and on social media. Daniel built the greatest social media operation of any Committee on Capitol Hill--training and supervising staff that were nimble, provocative, and engaging. Under his supervision the number of subscribers and their level of engagement with our content far outpaced the traditional House committee. Daniel has been at the epicenter of all of our crisis communications, tackling difficult questions with a level head, and providing excellent advice. My senior management team and I have always trusted Daniel's judgment and strategic thinking. While working separately on my campaign, Daniel helped propel me to a 30-point victory over a fellow Democratic Committee Chair in a tough New York primary. He was essential in debate preparation and worked with me to anticipate questions and ensure that I was ready to respond in the most powerful way possible. He led the communications team during the primary and helped me secure the New York Times endorsement. I wish Daniel the best of luck as he continues to fight for the rights and liberties of all people and I thank him for his service.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Matt Jansen for over six years of outstanding service in the United States House of Representatives working with the House Judiciary Committee, the House Ethics Committee, and my personal office representing constituents living in the heart of New York City. I value Matt's hard work, his impressive skill set, and his friendship. He has been by my side when I faced the toughest primary challenge of my career, when we fought together to pass the Respect for Marriage Act into law--ensuring marriage equality for LGBTQ+ families across the country, and to make the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act the law of the land. Matt has worked for the New York Senate Democratic Conference, as a Legislative Aide in the New York Assembly, and as an intern for New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Matt's journey on the House side of Capitol Hill began as an intern in my Washington, D.C. office back in 2019. He then moved over to the House Ethics Committee and was promoted to Advice and Education Clerk where he helped respond to questions from Members and staff throughout Capitol Hill. Matt returned to my team as a Staff Assistant and Legislative Correspondent. From there, he embarked on a remarkable career with our office, holding nearly every position--from Staff Assistant to Legislative Correspondent to Legislative Assistant, and even a brief stint as Scheduler--until he ultimately became Press Secretary for both my office and the House Judiciary Committee from 2023 to 2025. Throughout his tenure, Matt brought an impressive blend of professionalism, creativity, and humor to the role. As Press Secretary, he worked tirelessly behind the scenes, ensuring that my office's messages were clear, concise, and timely. He is an excellent writer and worked quickly to ensure our communications were relevant and far- reaching. He continuously found ways to elevate our communications-- from quick video clips to informative electronic updates, to printed newsletters. Matt worked to prepare me for appearances on MSNBC, NY1, and other local New York City television news programs. He worked closely with reporters to book interviews with major news outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post. Matt's commitment to learning led him to be an active and consistent participant in the many communications classes offered in the House-- even serving as an instructor from time to time. He routinely briefed his Democratic press colleagues on the many Judiciary Committee bills that came to the House floor each week and worked to coordinate the party message on major legislation facing the Congress. However, his contributions went far beyond just communications. He was always ready to go the extra mile for the team--whether it was accompanying me to events, moderating my town hall, or heading up the Party Planning Committee. His energy was contagious, and his commitment never wavered. In 2022, Matt took a leave of absence from my official office to be boots on the ground in New York City (NYC) assisting with my re- election campaign. He was a staple at many NYC subway stops, canvasing and connecting with constituents. His hard work and organizing skill helped propel me to a 30-point victory over a fellow Democratic Committee Chair in a tough New York primary. During his time in my office, Matt made the most of the many experiences available in D.C. From joining me at the White House bill signing ceremony for my Respect for Marriage Act, to escorting Former President Obama during the 2024 Inauguration, Matt was always willing to seize the opportunity. A proud University Albany alum and Long Islander, Matt brought the New York spirit to our office. Given his love for New York, Matt was always happy to help at events in the district, and I have particularly found memories of marching with him in the New York Pride. Like many of my constituents, Matt is a frequent visitor to Fire Island Pines, but even a day by the beach won't stop him from creating excellent communications content. While it's impossible to overstate Matt's loss from my team, I'm glad to know he's staying on the Hill. I look forward to running into him in the Longworth Cafeteria and am excited to see where his career takes him.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Israeli security; Palestinian freedom; a just, peaceful, and swift end to the war in Gaza; and an eventual, viable, and negotiated two-state solution. The situation in Gaza today is dire. I want to be clear. The war in Gaza began with Hamas' brutal attack on innocent Israelis on October 7, the bloodiest day in Jewish history since the Holocaust. For many in the Jewish community, in the United States, and around the world, time stopped on that day and has not yet resumed. It will resume when all the hostages are home. It will resume when the war is over and the reservists can return to their families. It will resume when there is enough food, water, and medicine in Gaza to alleviate the humanitarian catastrophe. It will resume when families on both sides of the border can sleep peacefully without the constant fear of rockets and bombs falling from the sky. It will resume when there is a lasting, durable, and negotiated cease-fire. Mr. Speaker, that day need not be far away. Israel achieved its goal of destroying the military capabilities and existential threat of Hamas months ago. Now, Prime Minister Netanyahu should be proclaiming victory and indicating his readiness to withdraw from Gaza contingent on the return of all the hostages, both living and dead. He should be signaling his willingness to support an international security force on an interim basis to ensure law and order and Israel's support for international investment in the training and equipping of an eventual Palestinian security force. He should be supporting confidence-building measures in the West Bank, which empower the Palestinian Authority contingent on the PA embracing and implementing real reforms. He should not be enacting an annexationist vision while the plague of settler violence runs rampant. The alternative, Mr. Speaker, is a stark and disturbing picture. This week, Tom Friedman wrote in The New York Times that: If ``Israel goes ahead with Netanyahu's vow to perpetuate this war indefinitely--to try to achieve . . . the far right's fantasy of ridding Gaza of Palestinians and resettling it with Israelis--Jews worldwide better prepare themselves, their children, and their grandchildren for a reality they have never known: to be Jewish in a world where the Jewish state is a pariah state, a source of shame, not of pride. ``Because one day, foreign photographers and reporters will be allowed to go into Gaza unescorted by the Israeli Army.'' And when they do, the full horror of the destruction there will become clear to all. Friedman continued, Mr. Speaker, writing: ``Israel, instead of being seen by Jews as a safe haven from anti-Semitism, will be seen as a new engine generating it; sane Israelis will line up to immigrate to Australia and America rather than beckon their fellow Jews to come Israel's way. That dystopian future is not here yet, but if you don't see its outlines gathering, you are deluding yourself.'' Mr. Friedman is not alone in this analysis. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, former Israeli security officials have been speaking out. Last week, two former Israeli Air Force pilots, Brigadier General Asaf Agmon and Colonel Uri Arad, published a letter in Hebrew in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. They wrote: ``As the war in Gaza dragged on, it became clear that it was losing its strategic and security purposes and instead served primarily the political and personal interests of the government. It thus became an unmistakably immoral war, and increasingly appeared to be a war of revenge.'' I agree with these distinguished former officials. It is clear to me that we long ago reached the point where victory is no longer the goal, and the main obstacle to bringing the hostages home and ending the war is the politics of one man: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. General Agmon and Colonel Arad are not peace activists, Mr. Speaker. They are former top Israeli Air Force pilots and high-ranking officers. We must heed their calls. They are not alone, Mr. Speaker. Commanders for Israel's Security is a movement of over 550 retired senior officials from Israel's defense, security and diplomatic services. The ``Commanders,'' as they are often referred to, recently published a letter urging Jewish diaspora voices to speak out in favor of ending the violence in Gaza. They wrote: ``Accused of weakening Israel or betraying their connection to the Jewish state, they are told that those who live abroad or do not serve in the IDF must keep silent. We categorically reject the notion that Jews in the diaspora must remain silent on matters concerning Israel. . . . To those who fear that public criticism undermines Israel, we say that open, honest dialogue only reinforces our democracy and security.'' This is true for this body, too, Mr. Speaker. We all must speak up. If our voices contribute to preventing one more ounce of bloodshed or to the return home of a hostage 1 minute sooner or gets one more piece of bread into the hands of a starving Gazan or helps redeem the moral position of the State of Israel, our words are worth it. Jewish tradition teaches in Mishnah Sanhedrin that saving one life is like saving the whole world. I hope that we can come together to heed the voices that are speaking out at this moment, and that together we can work to save as many worlds as we can.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Anita Altman, a distinguished New Yorker and cherished member of our community, who will celebrate her 80th birthday on June 2, 2025. Anita has devoted her life to building a more inclusive, compassionate, and just society. A proud daughter of the Bronx, Anita was raised in a working-class Greek Jewish household by her parents, Jack and Sarah, and her grandparents Anna and Zadick Coffino, who emigrated from the Ottoman Empire and made their home on the Lower East Side. From these deep roots, Anita cultivated a lifelong commitment to public service, Jewish communal life, and progressive social change. After earning her B.A. from City College and a Master's in Health Services Administration from the New School, Anita began a career that would span urban planning, public health, and groundbreaking social advocacy. From her early work at the New York City Planning Department and Montefiore Medical Center to her service on Manhattan's Community Board 7, Anita has been a tireless force for equitable development, healthcare access, and community empowerment. Anita's visionary leadership at UJA-Federation transformed the landscape of aging and disability services in New York. She was instrumental in launching the state's first programs for Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities, helping thousands of seniors age with dignity in the communities they helped build. She led one of the first Jewish communal responses to the AIDS epidemic and convened the Federation's Task Force on Family Violence, for which she was honored with the Governor's Courage Award and the Woman of Valor award from the New York Board of Rabbis. Perhaps most widely known is Anita's creation of the Reel Abilities Film Festival, the nation's largest showcase of films by and about people with disabilities. Through ReelAbilities, Anita helped elevate underrepresented voices, challenge public perceptions, and promote the full inclusion of people with disabilities in American life. As she celebrates 80 extraordinary years, I recognize Anita Altman for her vision, her integrity, and her unwavering belief that all people deserve to live with dignity, visibility, and respect.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the American people expect and deserve to know that their elected officials are working for them, not lining their own pockets. When Members of Congress trade individual stocks while in office, it fuels distrust, undermines public confidence, and casts a shadow over the work of this institution. Even the perception of impropriety weakens the bond between the government and the governed. Members of Congress have unparalleled access to market-moving information and the ability to shape laws and regulations that can impact entire industries. That power must never be used to enrich ourselves or our families. There is simply no legitimate reason for Members of Congress, their spouses, or their dependent children to be trading individual stocks, period. This bipartisan legislation would close that dangerous loophole once and for all. It would require lawmakers to place certain investments into qualified blind trusts, prevent conflicts of interest, and restore accountability where it is so desperately needed. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to cosponsor the TRUST in Congress Act, and I thank Representatives Magaziner and Roy for their leadership on this critical bipartisan legislation. It is a long overdue, commonsense step toward restoring integrity in public service and rebuilding the trust of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in both Chambers to join us in passing this essential reform.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I hereby remove my name as cosponsor of H. Res. 353.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration is the most lawless in American history. That is why so many of his policies are being blocked through nationwide injunctions. Republicans see this as evidence of some liberal plot among the judiciary, but the judges who have ruled against him, some appointed by such noted liberals as George Bush and Ronald Reagan, are not part of some grand conspiracy to stop the Trump agenda. They are following the law and the facts wherever they lead them. In case after case, the law and the facts are squarely against Donald Trump and his administration. Whether it be his efforts to rewrite the 14th Amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship or his scheme to deport immigrants without even the barest hint of due process, the courts have properly acted as a check on his power. How do Republicans respond? They respond not by urging the administration to stay on the right side of the law and the Constitution. No, they simply want to make it harder for anyone to hold this lawless administration accountable. This bill would prohibit district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions even when the policies they find unlawful or unconstitutional have nationwide effects. That would be as if Brown v. Board of Education applied only to Brown. To do so would mean that no one could ever effectively check any administration's power, and no administration could ever be held accountable. The President would be a real, not a would-be, dictator. This bill is a dangerous threat to the rule of law. This bill is not intended to curtail rogue judges from issuing rogue rulings. It is intended to enable a rogue administration to continue to violate the law. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this legislation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Lawler for those kind words. Mr. Speaker, I now ask that all Members and staff throughout the Capitol rise for a moment of silence in remembrance of Chairwoman Nita Lowey. May her memory be a blessing.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today, alongside my colleagues in the New York delegation and many of our other cherished colleagues, to mourn the loss of a giant of the House and a trailblazer for women in public service, Chairwoman Nita Lowey. For more than three decades, she represented her constituents in Westchester and Rockland Counties with unwavering dedication, fierce advocacy, and an unbreakable spirit. As the first woman to serve as chair of the Appropriations Committee, Nita shattered glass ceilings with dignity and determination. As the former dean of the New York delegation, Nita fought tirelessly to secure resources for the Empire State, leading the charge after September 11, Superstorm Sandy, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Nita's commitment to global security and education also left an indelible mark beyond our borders. As the top Democrat on the Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, she championed critical global health and education initiatives. Mr. Speaker, Nita was more than a colleague. She was a mentor and a friend to many of us. She was a voice of compassion and reason. She believed in the power of government to do good, and her legacy will endure through the lives she touched and the barriers she broke. May her memory be a blessing. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler), my colleague.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 77, the so-called Midnight Rules Relief Act. Despite the bill's title, this legislation is not really intended to address midnight rules at all. Instead, it is nothing more than an effort by the Republican majority to advance their antigovernment, deregulatory agenda under cover of darkness. Republicans know that taking a series of votes making it easier for corporations to undermine our health, safety, and economic well-being would be deeply unpopular. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want the public to know that Republicans care more about corporations than consumers, so they want to package as many rules as possible into a single resolution that would eliminate these rules all at once, reducing transparency and obscuring the consequences. This legislation would allow the majority to put dozens of critical regulations issued by the Biden administration on the chopping block. Republicans will talk all about the costs of these regulations, but the majority will never talk about the benefits, like healthier children, safer drinking water, and stronger consumer protections. If my Republican colleagues really want to roll back regulations that ensure the safety of bath seats for infants or create dust, lead, and lead pipe safety standards, or update certain emergency braking standards, fine. Let's have that debate out in the open. We can let our constituents judge whether we took the right vote. Don't hide behind a giant omnibus bill that obscures the consequences of the majority's actions. If we are truly concerned about so-called midnight rules, we have other options to check them. For example, at the end of President George W. Bush's administration, I authored a bill that would delay implementation of rules issued near the end of a President's term, giving his or her successor the chance to review such rules and to determine if they should go forward. I believe there are ways that we could work together in a bipartisan manner to address this issue. Where past efforts tried using a scalpel to address the problems associated with midnight rulemaking, today's Republicans want to instead use a machete, hacking away at the Biden administration's regulatory agenda, putting all of the rules together in one vote, and furthering their ideological goal of radically transforming our government. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this legislation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose this legislation, which is not rooted in medical realities. Physicians do not abort babies after birth, period. Healthcare providers have always been legally required to provide appropriate care. Patients and providers must be free to make health decisions based on their circumstances without political interference. I will tell you what this bill would do. It will cause more pain and suffering for families who are already facing an extraordinarily heartbreaking situation. In many cases, it may be safer and healthier to treat a baby at the birth location rather than wasting precious time traveling to a hospital. This bill would take that medical judgment away from doctors and give it to politicians, putting infants' lives at greater risk. That is outrageous. This bill is not about protecting children. It is about controlling women's lives. Republicans campaigned on the promise that they would not ban abortion, yet here we are in the first month of the new Congress and the GOP has already brought this cruel bill to the floor in an effort to advance a dangerous agenda to ban abortion nationwide, although this bill really will ban no abortions at all but rather threaten the lives of some newborns. It is shameful. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. The Republican majority has chosen to begin this year with a series of bills intended to fearmonger and demonize immigrants. This legislation not only perpetuates that effort, but it would also have serious consequences for survivors of domestic violence. I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided bill.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, let's be very clear. Sexual offenses and domestic violence are serious crimes and are already grounds for deportability and inadmissibility, as they should be. Unfortunately, this bill is so poorly drafted that it would result in extremely harsh and unintended consequences, including the removal of survivors of domestic violence. This bill attempts to significantly expand the definition of domestic violence to include the Violence Against Women Act definition that is used for grants and funding. This is a much broader definition that was never meant to be used in criminal law. We know that because the definition explicitly says it covers conduct ``that may or may not constitute criminal behavior.'' The definition for domestic violence under Federal criminal law focuses on physical force. This broader VAWA-based definition sweeps in a wider range of behaviors that domestic violence organizations say will implicate survivors who have used violence in self-defense or who were accused by their abusers and were either unable to defend themselves or pled guilty to avoid having to go through the court process. This bill would also make it less likely that immigrant communities will report incidents of domestic violence. We recently celebrated the 30th anniversary of the passage of VAWA, and we should continue our work to combat domestic violence, but this legislation would actually set back our efforts to protect survivors. That is why over 200 national and local groups, as part of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, the experts in the field, oppose this legislation. I think we ought to listen to them. We need to work together to solve our immigration problems, but this bill takes us in the wrong direction. The Republican majority has chosen to begin this year with a series of bills intended to fearmonger and demonize immigrants.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this hateful bill. This bill is a cruel attack on transgender children, already among the most vulnerable in our society, facing high risks of suicide, violence, and bullying. Let's be clear. This bill isn't about fairness. The NCAA stated last month there are fewer than 10 transgender athletes in collegiate sports out of 510,000, less than 0.002 of 1 percent of athletes. The rare cases Republicans cite are outliers, not evidence of a systemic issue. To deal with this 0.002 of 1 percent, the bill opens the door to invasive scrutiny of all girls' bodies, violating their privacy and dignity. Little girls will be forced to have their biological sex verified through humiliating physical examinations of their genitals by strangers and forced to present documentation about their anatomy. In States with similar bans, even cisgender girls deemed not feminine enough have faced harassment, humiliation, and have been forced to undergo genital examination. This isn't fairness. It is cruelty. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this hateful bill and focus on real issues affecting our schools and communities.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present on Roll Call No. 7 of the 119th Congress, which was H.R. 23, Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act, I would have voted NO. I strongly oppose the International Criminal Court's recent actions regarding Israel, including my belief that the ICC does not have jurisdiction in this matter and that its actions are unhelpful in peacefully resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet, H.R. 23's overly broad scope and rushed sanctions and visa restrictions are counterproductive. Imposing such sanctions and restrictions on any foreign person--and their close family members--who is deemed to have aided, materially assisted, or provided financial support to the ICC in any way, undermines the Court's investigates into important matters on which it does have jurisdiction, would have a deleterious impact on American allies and partners around the world, and could create an opportunity for American adversaries to gain prominence in sensitive international fora. Domestically, H.R. 23 also raises serious First Amendment concerns and has the potential to undermine American rule of law. For all these reasons, I would have voted NO on H.R. 23.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, due to a personal matter, I was not in Washington D.C. today. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 7.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 29. I start by expressing my deepest condolences to Laken Riley's family. Her death was a tragedy, and we all mourn her loss. May her memory be a blessing. I wish that we were considering legislation that was worthy of her name. Instead, the Republican majority is beginning this new Congress right where they left off in the last one, with legislation that targets and scapegoats immigrants, but does nothing to address the real problems in our broken immigration system, all while ignoring basic due process and constitutional principles. Among other things, this legislation would subject to mandatory detention any undocumented immigrants who are merely charged with committing an act of theft or shoplifting, even if they are innocent. This means if someone is merely accused of shoplifting, someone who might be innocent, who might be the victim of mistaken identity, and who has not had the opportunity to clear his name, would be subject to mandatory detention. This bill is so broad that it would lead to the detention of people who have committed no crime and have no intention of harming anyone. That flies in the face of all notions of basic due process and reason. It is both pernicious and absurd. Where will the Federal Government get the resources to detain all these people? Congress has never appropriated, and no administration has ever requested, sufficient resources to detain all noncitizens who fall under the mandatory detention categories. Even President Trump, during his first term, never tried to detain all migrants subject to mandatory detention. It was far too costly, even for him. Since this bill is so sweeping, even Dreamers and people living here on temporary protected status, people who may have lived in this country for decades and shortly after their birth, could be subject to the bill's harsh provisions. If that weren't bad enough, the bill also declares that States have standing to sue over certain immigration provisions so long as the State or its residents suffer even the most trivial financial harm. This appears to be a ham-handed attempt to circumvent recent Supreme Court rulings limiting States' standing to sue the Federal Government over immigration enforcement matters. Merely declaring that the States have standing to sue does not make it so. This provision is almost certainly unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the lack of attention that Republicans pay to such matters perfectly sums up their entire approach to immigration. Instead of working toward serious solutions to serious problems, they are content to simply play politics and consider it a job well done. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, as we have both said, we are going around in circles, so I will say what everybody has been waiting to hear: I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are going around in circles, but let me just add one thing. We call this the Midnight Rules Relief Act, but it is a big midnight. It extends the entire year, the last year of any President's administration. A whole year, that is hardly a midnight rule. Again, if you want to look at the merits of a rule--and the gentleman says we have only like 20, 25 a year maybe or maybe we will have 250 next year, who knows. It depends on the politics. Debate the bill. When a bill comes to the floor, there is 1 hour of debate. We are supposed to debate 25 CRAs in an hour. Some of them may be good, and some of them may be bad. Each CRA deserves its own consideration by those who support it and by those who oppose it. This bill says, no, all together in one bill, so you can't really oppose or support any particular one of them. Take it or leave it on all of them, and you have no time for debate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill does exactly the opposite of what the gentleman from Arizona says. This bill does not give us the chance to look at a regulation and decide whether it makes sense. This bill puts all the regulations together so that we can't look at them. We can't look at any one of them in particular because they are all together in one vote with one hour of debate on the floor. Let me give you an example of a rule that is on the chopping block. You have a rule ensuring that all cell phones--it is a new rule--that all cell phones are hearing aid compatible, a rule that requires cell phone makers to update their tech. Does my colleague want to roll this back? What is the cost that my colleague would stomach to ensure our seniors can call and hear their family members and friends? That is just one regulation. Maybe you think it costs too much money for the tech companies to satisfy grandma and grandpa, that they shouldn't be able to talk to their grandkids or their family members by phone because it costs the tech companies too much money. All right. Make that case on the floor with a CRA. I will debate it because I think the opposite, but make that case on the floor with a CRA. This bill says don't make that case on the floor with a CRA. Put all the CRAs together so you can't debate the merits of any one of them. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman wants to criticize the Republican leadership of the House for not bringing to the floor the 12 appropriations bills that they promised they would and that they should, and instead putting them all in one omnibus bill, I join him in that criticism. It is not the way to run the ship of state. I join him in that criticism of the Republican leadership of the House. Let's go back to the lead paint. It costs $45 million we are told. How much does it save in children not getting lead paint poisoning, in hospital costs? It saves a lot more, presumably. We have agencies that Congress has established over the last more than a century, since World War I, since the Wilson administration, to make determinations that Congress can't. How many parts per million of cadmium should be permitted in drinking water? I don't know, but the EPA makes that judgment. Now, if someone in Congress thinks the EPA made the wrong judgment, that it is costing more than it is worth, bring a CRA. That is why we have CRAs. Don't talk about the total cost of all regulations because the total benefit of all regulations is many times greater than that. Certainly, if you are talking about looking at anything, bring a single CRA. This bill, again, says to Congress, don't look at what the administrative agencies have done. Don't look at whether it makes sense to have this regulation or not. Just take 25 or 35 or 45 CRAs, repeal 35 or 25 or 55 rules without having a chance to really look at any of them because someone in the Republican leadership decided that they should. If this bill passes, Congress will not have the chance to examine any subject of a CRA. That is why this bill is so pernicious and ought to be defeated. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.