Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am a little puzzled by what I am hearing on the floor today and, frankly, what I heard in committee this morning on a different bill. The gist of that is, well, we passed a bill, but we know it is not exactly the way the Senate wants it; therefore, we shouldn't pass it. We should only pass a bill exactly the way the Senate wants it; otherwise, it is only for show. On this bill, look what happened. This reauthorization was included in the VAWA reauthorization, which we passed and sent to the Senate. Ah, but that was political, we are told, because the Senate doesn't agree in every respect with the VAWA reauthorization we passed, so they won't touch it. Well, I don't understand that. I always thought, from the time I was in third grade, that they should pass their own version of the VAWA bill. If it is different from ours, we go to conference. But, no. No, we can't rely on them to do that. They have to have a bill that they agree with totally, or they won't look at the subject no matter how important. Ah, but they introduced their own. They took it out of VAWA, and they did their own Debbie Smith bill. Fine. We are doing a Debbie Smith bill because we don't agree exactly with what they did. They put in some new accountability provisions. We have always had accountability provisions in the bill, still there. It has always been the law. They are adding some new ones which we judge to be unduly burdensome on small providers. It is a judgment. We should pass this bill. They have passed a different version of the bill. We can go to conference, iron it out. That is the way the process is supposed to work. My Republican colleagues seem to think that we should never talk to the Senate; we should only pass a bill exactly the way they passed it. Or if they haven't passed it exactly the way we know they will want it and if we pass a bill differently, then it is just political posturing. That is nonsense. This reauthorization bill is a good bill. It is the way we think it ought to be. If we pass it--they have already passed a different reauthorization bill. I regret that they didn't pass the entire VAWA reauthorization bill, but we can go to conference. We can iron it out. If someone wants to argue that the provisions in that bill are better, let them offer it here, but not be heard to say we should only do exactly what the Senate wants. That doesn't make sense. We are our own independent body. We were elected to do our job. This is the way we want to do it. This is the way we think the bill ought to be. We put it in the VAWA reauthorization bill. We have given up waiting for the Senate on that one. They passed a Debbie Smith bill in a version we don't entirely approve of. We will pass our own version. We will get together. We will see if we can agree on it. That is the way the process ought to work. If we pass this bill, that is the way the process will work, and we are more likely to get a reauthorization bill than by standing here and saying: Don't pass this bill. Only pass a bill--which we won't do-- exactly in a form that we don't like, exactly the way the Senate wanted it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Madam Speaker, it is critical that we do all that we can to prevent sexual assault and that we ensure survivors receive the essential services they need, which is why we passed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act earlier this year. And I would remind my colleagues that the VAWA Act, which included the authorization for the Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act, expired last September 30, 2018, when the Republicans had the majority in the House, the majority in the Senate, and the President. So the fact that it lapsed was unfortunate, but it was also the responsibility of the Republican Party, which then had control of the Senate, the House, and the Presidency to get its continuation, which they neglected to do. We continue to urge the Senate to do the right thing and pass the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which includes the Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act. And we will also, again, today pass provisions to reauthorize the Debbie Smith Act by advancing this bill today. In doing so, we reaffirm our commitment to this important program. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support this bill, and to continue to fight to support the more comprehensive measures in the Violence Against Women Act. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2426, the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2019, or the CASE Act. This important bipartisan legislation would establish a voluntary small claims court within the Copyright Office to hear copyright suits seeking $30,000 or less in total damages. Today, many small creators, especially visual artists, are unable to protect their rights because the cost of pursuing an infringement claim in Federal court is far greater, as much as 10 times or more than the damages they could ever hope to receive. Few attorneys would take a case when such limited damages are at stake because they would not likely recoup their costs. It is a fundamental principle of the American legal system that a right must have a remedy. But if it costs $250,000 to recover a few thousand dollars from someone who has infringed your copyright, then what remedy do you really have? The CASE Act would provide important protections for the many independent creators who are currently unable to protect their work in Federal court. It would establish a small claims board within the Copyright Office to resolve infringement claims seeking $30,000 or less in total damages, with claims officers appointed by the Librarian of Congress. The proceedings are designed to be less expensive and much easier to navigate, even without an attorney, than Federal court. And they would enable parties to represent themselves or to seek pro bono assistance from law students. The board would conduct its proceedings entirely by telephone and the internet, and no one would need to travel to a hearing or a courthouse. The bill caps damages at no more than $15,000 per work infringed, and no more than $30,000 total. The board would work with the parties to settle their claims. Importantly, the proceedings would be voluntary. Plaintiffs can decide whether this is the proper forum to file their claim, and defendants may opt out of the process if they prefer to have their case heard by a Federal judge. The sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), has worked tirelessly to ensure that this legislation includes revisions and suggestions from many Members and stakeholders. The revisions include various heightened due process protections and provisions intended to reduce potential abuse of the system, all of which has made a good bill even better. For far too long, it has been virtually impossible for small creators to vindicate their right to a just measure of damages from infringers. Today we have an opportunity to take an important step in helping independent photographers, filmmakers, graphic designers, and other creators to protect their work. I would like to thank Mr. Jeffries and Ranking Member Collins for their outstanding leadership on the CASE Act. I would also like to thank the Copyright Office, which conducted an exhaustive study on the issue and whose recommendations form the basis for the bill. In addition, I appreciate the support of colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), who has introduced similar legislation in previous Congresses and who has been tireless in her work to protect creators' rights. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1423, the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act, or the FAIR Act. This critical legislation would restore access to justice for millions of Americans who are currently locked out of the court system and are forced to settle their disputes against companies in a private system of arbitration that is often skewed in the company's favor over the individual. Nearly a century ago, Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act to allow merchants to resolve run-of-the-mill contract disputes in a system of private arbitration that would be legally enforceable. The system that Congress envisioned was to be used voluntarily and only between merchants of equal bargaining power. However, the Supreme Court, over the past 40 years, has issued a series of decisions that have expanded the use of arbitration far beyond Congress' original intent or a fair reading of the text of the Federal Arbitration Act, creating the unjust system that we see today. Private arbitration has been transformed from a voluntary forum for companies to resolve commercial disputes into a legal nightmare for millions of consumers, employees, and others who are forced into arbitration and are unable to enforce certain fundamental rights in court. Many companies use forced arbitration as a tool to protect themselves from consumers and workers who seek to hold them accountable for wrongdoing. By burying a forced arbitration clause deep in the fine print of a take-it-or-leave-it consumer or employment contract, companies can evade the court system, where plaintiffs have far greater legal protections, and hide behind the one-sided process that is tilted in their favor. For example, arbitration generally limits discovery, does not adhere to the Rules of Civil Procedure, can prohibit class actions--which it almost always does--and denies the right of appeal. Worse yet, arbitration allows the proceedings, and often even the results, to stay secret, thereby permitting companies to avoid public scrutiny of potential misconduct, thereby enabling companies to continue unsafe practices after settling with one person. For millions of consumers and employees, the precondition--whether they know it or not--of obtaining a basic service or product, such as a bank account, a cell phone, a credit card, or even a job, is that they must agree to resolve any disputes in private arbitration. We used to refer to these kinds of agreements as contracts of adhesion, where one party with all the power dictates the terms to the other party in a take-it-or-leave-it contract. The next time you apply for a credit card, try crossing out the term in the fine print requiring you to agree to arbitration and see if you still get that credit card. You will be denied without a moment's hesitation. These are classic contracts of adhesion, which were once clearly disfavored under the law, but which now seem to have been blessed by the Supreme Court as standard operating procedures in the corporate world. Madam Chair, the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to a jury trial for all controversies at law over $20. These agreements for arbitration nullify the Seventh Amendment. We have to respect the Constitution. The Constitution has more things in it than the Second Amendment. It has a few other amendments, like the Seventh Amendment, which we should respect. These contracts of adhesion, these agreements, nullify any protections that Congress votes. If we vote or a State legislature votes on an employment protection, a union protection, a consumer protection, its enforcement can be completely nullified by these arbitration agreements. For individuals who have no choice but to agree to these contracts, that means that their ability to enforce civil rights, consumer, labor, and antitrust laws are subject to the whims of a private arbitrator, often selected by the companies themselves. These private arbitrators are not required to provide plaintiffs any of the fundamental protections guaranteed in the courts, and their further employment can depend on building a good reputation with the companies that hire them. Unsurprisingly, then, arbitration has become a virtual get-out-of- jail-free card that many companies use to circumvent the basic rights of consumers and workers. H.R. 1423, the FAIR Act, reverse this disastrous trend by prohibiting arbitration clauses in consumer, labor, antitrust, and civil rights disputes. Importantly, this legislation does not preclude parties from agreeing to arbitrate a claim after the dispute arises, which will ensure that arbitration agreements are truly voluntary and transparent. It does, however, prevent unsuspecting consumers and employees from being forced to give up their right to seek justice in court. I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Bustos).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining, please, on each side.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, we have a bedrock principle in this country, and that is that all Americans deserve their day in court. We make a mockery of this principle, however, when individuals can be stripped of this fundamental right and be forced into private arbitration proceedings without the safeguards our judicial system affords. We make a mockery of this right not only when individuals can be stripped of this right, but when almost all Americans are stripped of this fundamental right and are forced into private arbitration proceedings without the safeguards our judicial system affords. Now, we heard the statistics cited by the gentleman, which come from the Chamber of Commerce, and Mr. Cicilline showed how wrong those statistics were. But the real point is, of course, that, under this bill, if a plaintiff thinks that he can get a better deal under arbitration, then arbitration is available voluntarily, as it should be. What this bill seeks to ban is individuals--almost all Americans-- involuntarily giving up their sacred constitutional right to a trial by jury, to their day in court, whether they like it or not. This bill will guarantee that people have their rights. They can opt for arbitration if they want to, but they don't have to. This bill supports liberty; it supports constitutional rights; and it supports the little guy against the giant corporation. H.R. 1423, the FAIR Act, rights these wrongs by reopening the courthouse door to all Americans. I applaud the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) for his leadership on this legislation which has 222 cosponsors. This measure is also supported by a broad coalition of more than 70 public-interest, labor, and advocacy organizations, including Public Citizen, Consumer Reports, the Communications Workers of America, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and the American Association of Justice, not just by trial lawyers. In addition, 84 percent of Americans across the political spectrum support ending forced arbitration in employment and consumer disputes, according to recent polling data. Mr. Chairman, it is up to Congress to end this secretive and unfair practice. I urge my colleagues to support the FAIR Act and to restore access to justice for millions of Americans, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. There are more than 60 million workers who make up a majority of nonunion, private sector employees and who are subject to forced arbitration clauses. These employees are told that, if they want to get a job or keep the job they have, they must sign away their right to their day in court and submit to forced arbitration. These workers have absolutely no choice. Many of these workers have no idea that they are subject to forced arbitration, and even if they are aware, there is nothing they can do about it; and, of course, it is not possible for them to know that they may be victims of sexual assault, wage discrimination, or other illegal behavior before they begin employment. This is a serious power imbalance which allows companies to unilaterally impose unfair terms upon nonunion employees. The FAIR Act aims to put power back into the hands of these 60 million workers who have been forced by their employer to sign away their rights. But when real choice is part of the equation, arbitration can be a reasonable alternative to litigation. Collective bargaining, which involves meaningful negotiation between the company and the union, results in a much different arbitration process and can produce much different results. In a 2019 report, the Economic Policy Institute noted that ``beyond the use of the world `arbitration,' the system that organized labor and management have long been using to resolve disputes has almost nothing in common with the top-down, take-it-or-leave-it brand of arbitration.'' The collective bargaining process provides protections that are simply unavailable to many nonunion workers, such as the ability to reject unfair employment terms. In collective bargaining, the company cannot just impose its will upon the union. There must be buy-in on both sides. When arbitration is agreed to through collective bargaining, there is less likely to be an experience gap between the parties. In nonunion arbitration, the company continuously interacts with arbitrators, while the employee may only see the arbitrator once, if that. And in most cases, the company gives itself unilateral power to pick the arbitrator. This creates a conflict of interest in which the arbitrator has a strong incentive to prioritize the company's interest by finding in its favor than to fairly assess the claim at issue. The collective bargaining process looks much different. Like the company, the union also has the benefit of being a repeat player in arbitration. The union understands how the process works, and it may even have experience practicing in front of the same arbitrator multiple times. When the repeat player dynamic exists on both sides of the arbitration, the risk that one party will be systematically favored over the other is greatly reduced. Furthermore, through collective bargaining, a union can secure a variety of important protections for workers, such as requiring truly neutral arbitrators, paid time off for employees to participate in the arbitration, and transparent decisionmaking. Often, union employees are guaranteed a multilevel appeals process, lowering the risk that an arbitrator will ignore relevant laws or that there will be an unjust result. The concerns that the FAIR Act is designed to address simply do not occur in the context of collective bargaining and, therefore, makes no sense to apply its restrictions to such contracts. Accordingly, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. If anything, this discussion about collective bargaining shows that arbitration can be a fair and reasonable process when there is actual choice on both sides of the tracks. But for the majority, the overwhelming majority of nonunion private sector workers, that choice simply does not exist. This amendment fails to comprehend these critical distinctions between collective bargaining and the take-it-or-leave-it arbitration clauses that the majority of workers face. And it fails to recognize that restoring equity and choice is exactly what the FAIR Act claims to do. You cannot compare apples and oranges, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) tried to do. Finally, as the AFL-CIO explains, this amendment, ``would also be directly contrary to the intent of Congress in both the Wagner and Taft-Hartley Acts, which encourage the practice of collective bargaining and the resolution of contract disputes through arbitration.'' And, again, arbitration voluntarily agreed to by the workers through their democratically elected union is not the same as coercive forced arbitration. Mr. Chair, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to thank Susan Jensen for her more than 20 years of service to the House Judiciary Committee. Susan is one of the preeminent experts on bankruptcy law, administrative law, and the federal court system. Although she will be leaving the Committee, she will continue in public service as she transitions to the Office of Legislative Affairs at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Susan is highly respected on both sides of the aisle. It is a testament to her knowledge and fairness that she worked as Counsel and later Senior Counsel for Republican and Democratic House Judiciary Committee Chairs, including Chairman Henry Hyde, Chairman Lamar Smith, Chairman and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. and myself, as Ranking Member and now Chairman. Largely as a result of receiving a generous scholarship from the Service Employees International Union Local 32-B in New York City, Susan was able to attend New York University where she received her undergraduate degree. She subsequently obtained her JD and LLM at NYU. Before entering law school, Susan worked as a press aide for Connecticut Governor Ella Grasso. After graduating law school, she served as a law clerk for two bankruptcy judges, initially for one year in the Eastern District of New York, and then for seven years in the Southern District of New York. Thereafter, she served as Senior Attorney-Advisor at the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of the United States Trustee in Newark, New Jersey. She later served as the General Counsel to the National Bankruptcy Review Commission from 1996 to 1997, working under the direction of then-Professor and now-Senator Elizabeth Warren. Susan has authored a treatise on consumer bankruptcy and subsequent editions for the New York State Bar Association and has authored book chapters and numerous articles on bankruptcy and other matters. She was also elected to the American Law Institute in 2010. In 1998 she was hired by Chairman Hyde to serve as a full committee counsel working on bankruptcy issues. Under Chairman and Ranking Member Conyers, Susan expanded her portfolio, and when I was elected to serve as Chair, I also asked Susan to serve as the Committee Parliamentarian, in addition to her other duties. Since joining the Judiciary Committee in 1998, she has worked on various matters, including bankruptcy legislation, reauthorization of the Administrative Conference of the United States, federal courts, oversight of the Justice Department, privacy issues, and interstate compacts. She has also assisted in the preparation and review of an array of Committee documents, including Committee reports, hearing memoranda, statements, and related materials. I can say from firsthand experience that Susan is not only one of the most knowledgeable lawyers on Capitol Hill, but she is also one of the most diligent, thoughtful, and fair-minded individuals I have ever worked with. I am fortunate to have been able to work with her as a staffer and friend. All of those who have worked with Susan have benefited from her intelligence, good humor, and mentoring. I wish Susan well in her new endeavor, and I thank her for her years of superb work.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Maloney for yielding and for all her work over the years on this issue. It is hard to believe it has been 18 years. Like many New Yorkers, 9/ 11 seems both long ago and immediate, a memory and something I live with every day. I was in Washington that morning and immediately rushed back to New York by train. I saw the smoking wreckage in Lower Manhattan from the train window and expected chaos in the city, but, when I exited Penn Station that evening, I was struck by the silence. It was like a scene from out of the movie ``On the Beach.'' The city seemed empty. No cars, no people, no vehicles, no buses, nothing on the streets--just the strange odor that hung in the air. Knowing the terror and confusion happening just 40 blocks south, the silence was eerie. But, as we recall the fear and grief of September 11, we cannot forget the courage we saw that morning and in the days, weeks, and months following the attack: the firefighters who ran into those buildings, the police officers who searched for survivors, the coworkers who carried each other down endless stairs, the strangers on the street who guided each other to safety, the construction workers who spent months clearing debris. The legacy of 9/11 is not just one of tragedy and grief; it is one of courage, self-sacrifice, and community; it is one of the American people, through Congress, appropriating $20 billion to help New York begin to recover from the terrorist attack. But history would not be complete if we did not acknowledge that the Federal Government exacerbated the massive environmental disaster caused by the collapse of the World Trade Center by insisting, contrary to ample evidence, that the air in Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn was safe to breathe. Thousands of responders, from all over the country, worked on the World Trade Center site with minimal or no protective equipment. The Federal Government did not step in to conduct the necessary comprehensive cleanup of the schools, offices, and residences in Lower Manhattan. Instead, students were sent back to schools caught in a dust cloud before the ventilation systems were cleaned. Residents and office workers were sent back to buildings covered in asbestos. I joined a few environmental groups in trying to warn people that they could not believe the assurances of EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman and Mayor Giuliani that the air was not safe to breathe, that people should not return to school or to work without respiratory protection and until a proper cleanup was done. Eventually, we forced the government to acknowledge those lies and to provide healthcare and resources for those clearly made sick by their exposure to those toxins. As subcommittee chair, I held the first hearings to hold the EPA and former EPA administrator Whitman accountable for putting hundreds of thousands at risk. Those hearings were held in 2007. Working with Congresswoman Maloney, Congressman King, and my colleagues in New York and New Jersey, we finally got Congress to come together in 2010 to pass the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, to establish a national health program, and to reopen the Victim Compensation Fund to provide support to sick responders and survivors. In 2015, as these programs were about to expire, we made the Health Program permanent, but reauthorized the VCF for only 5 years. This year, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I was incredibly proud and moved to hold a hearing on the need for additional time and money for the VCF. We heard heartbreaking testimony from sick responders and survivors: a firefighter, an FBI agent, a former high school student, the widow of a construction worker, and the late Detective Luis Alvarez, who passed away from a 9/11-related cancer just weeks after testifying. The very next day, the committee unanimously passed the bill to make the fund permanent, to restore any cuts to past awards, and to ensure the Victim Compensation Fund had all the necessary funding going forward. That bill passed the full House and Senate and went straight to the President's desk, where it was signed into law. Creating the Health Program and the Victim Compensation Fund and making those programs permanent count among the proudest moments of my time as a Member of Congress. Through these programs, we are finally living up to the challenge Abraham Lincoln laid before us in his second inaugural address, that we must care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan. We will never forget 9/11. We will never forget those who perished on that day from the terrorist attacks, and we will never abandon those who battled that day and still bear the scars. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Maloney for hosting this Special Order hour with me and for being such a champion for the survivors and responders over the years. I thank each of our colleagues who come to the floor this evening to remember those we lost and thank all of our colleagues who joined us in voting for and renewing the 9/11 healthcare act.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 100th birthday of Mrs. Bernice Rosenblum. Bernice was born on June 28, 1919, the oldest of 5 sisters. At 19 years of age, she traveled from her hometown of Vilna, Poland to the United States. On her journey from her home to the Warsaw train station, she met the man whom she would eventually marry, Jacob. They traveled together from Warsaw to the port of Poland and across the Atlantic, docking in New York City. They would later learn, they managed to get on the last boat leaving Poland before World War II broke out. Jacob and Bernice initially lived apart: Jacob stayed in the New York area and Bernice traveled to Chicago. After a few years, Bernice came to New York to marry Jacob, and they were happily married for over 50 years. In New York, they started their family, raising two children: Diana and Kenneth. Bernice is now the proud grandmother to four grandchildren and a beloved GG to six great-grandchildren. Bernice is truly ahead of her time and is known for her determination, hard work and incredible work ethic. Bernice is an inspirational woman who always took pride in her work and always made time to give back to her community, including volunteering at NYU hospital in the rehabilitation room. Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in celebrating the life of Bernice Rosenblum, and in wishing her a happy 100th birthday.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, a bill that will reduce diesel emissions and protect public health by reauthorizing the EPA's DERA program. Emissions from diesel engines are a significant source of our nation's greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA has long linked direct emissions from these engines to premature deaths, lung cancer, and increased risk of asthma. Since 2008, DERA has awarded over $600 million in funding to replace or retrofit over 65,000 older diesel engines with American-made clean diesel technology. The EPA estimates that the cleaner-burning engines will reduce 5 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions and lead to $19 billion in health benefits over the lifetime of the affected engines. Additionally, the EPA estimates that for every federal dollar spent, DERA projects generate up to $30 in public health benefits and over $2 in fuel savings. It is no wonder that DERA has enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support. The most recent DERA reauthorization passed unanimously in the Senate and by voice vote in the House in 2010. While DERA's authorization expired in FY 2016, I have been proud to work with Representative's Matsui and Barragan to secure robust funding for the program. With an estimated 40 percent of our nation's heavy-duty diesel vehicles operating without clean technology, the DERA program is still desperately needed. I urge my colleagues to vote yes to reauthorize this popular and cost-effective program.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise to offer my most sincere condolences to the family and friends of Cynthia K. Watkins Meadow, who passed away on April 25, 2019. Cynthia was a long-time congressional staffer and dedicated public servant. Cynthia was born in Fort Smith, Arkansas, on July 27, 1941. She graduated from Fort Smith High School, attended Fort Smith Junior College, and graduated from Baylor University in 1964. Cynthia went on to obtain her law degree from Catholic University, attending night school while working as a congressional staffer. Cynthia's 30-year career on Capitol Hill began on the staff of U.S. Senator Ralph Yarborough and culminated on the House Judiciary Committee under Chairman Jack Brooks, where she rose to become Chief Counsel of the Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law. She also served on the professional staff of the House Government Operations Committee's Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security. One of the more important bills Cynthia worked on for the Judiciary Committee was the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cynthia helped then- Chairman Brooks use sign language during hearings and markups on the legislation, for the benefit of members of the public who were hearing impaired. To show his appreciation, Chairman Brooks sent Cynthia a floral arrangement afterwards. As she told her co-workers, she was quite surprised and delighted by his gesture. Following her retirement from Capitol Hill in January 1995, Cynthia attended and graduated from the Baptist Seminary in Richmond, Virginia. Continuing her lifelong dedication to helping others, she served as an ordained Deacon at University Baptist Church in College Park, Maryland. Cynthia is survived by her husband Joseph F. Meadow and her son Michael Joseph, who works for the Architect of the Capitol, as well as her sisters, Sandy and Gloria, and many in-laws, nephews, and nieces. Cynthia's good work and deeds will long be remembered by her many friends on Capitol Hill, in the Washington area, and around the Nation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the Congressional career of Lisette Morton, my long time Legislative Director and the Director of Policy, Planning, and Member Services of the House Judiciary Committee. Lisette began her career on Capitol Hill nearly 20 years ago working on environmental issues for the late Congressman Bruce Vento. She started working as my Legislative Assistant in the year 2000 and became my Legislative Director in 2004. Lisette has an encyclopedic understanding of a huge range of issues and always ensured that I was well prepared for hearings, markups, and floor debates. She is a constant source of reliable and informed advice on which I have relied for almost two decades. Throughout her tenure in my office, Lisette worked tirelessly to meet New York's unique transportation and infrastructure needs. She helped achieve a major legislative accomplishment by securing $100 million under the Projects of National Significance Title of the Transportation bill for the cross harbor rail freight tunnel. Securing this much money in a highway bill for a rail project was unprecedented. She also consistently ensured that passenger rail legislation protected resources for the Northeast Corridor, while preventing massive cuts to Amtrak. She ensured I had a seat on the Conference Committee that negotiated the 2015 FAST Act, which allowed me to bring an additional $1.5 billion in highway and transit formula funding to New York. In 2016, she worked on the FAA extension and ensured that my legislation, the Families Flying Together Act, was included in the final bill. Lisette has faced down many national crises as a member of my team. She worked for me on September 11, 2001, and was tireless in her efforts to get a proper detoxification and cleanup after the attack in New York and to hold the EPA accountable. Without her fierce advocacy and dedication, there would be more 9/11 responders and survivors sick today. Her work laid the groundwork for everything that followed, including the establishment of a permanent World Trade Center Health Program and 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund. During the BP oil spill in 2010, Lisette worked tirelessly to get language I authored to ban the use of dispersants included in the Gulf Spill legislation that passed the House of Representatives. Finally, during Superstorm Sandy, Lisette worked closely with me and my staff to drive resources quickly to those who needed it in the aftermath of the storm. She worked around the clock with federal, state, and local officials to solve problems as they arose and pass supplemental funding legislation to build back our critical New York infrastructure and make it more resilient. Lisette has always been an advocate for the arts, especially music, and protecting the rights of artists. Lisette played a critical role in my work on copyright issues with the Judiciary Committee. Lisette worked tremendously hard to pass the Music Modernization Act out of the Judiciary Committee and ultimately out of the House by a remarkable vote of 415-0. Passage of this bill was a major legislative achievement that took years to complete and would not have happened without her hard work and dedication to the effort. Lisette played a critical role in helping to elect me to the position of Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee in 2017. She quickly established herself as the Director of Member Services and worked to make sure Members concerns are heard and that committee staff and Members are kept informed of Judiciary Committee business. This year, when I became Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Lisette took on the new role of Director of Policy, Planning, and Member Services. She worked with our entire Judiciary team to create a bold legislative agenda, to ensure hearings were held on critical issues facing the country, and to pass meaningful legislation out of Committee and onto the floor of the House. With her help, the Judiciary Committee passed H.R. 1, the For the People Act; H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act; H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act; H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act; H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization; H.R. 5, the Equality Act; and H.R. 1327, the Permanent Reauthorization of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund Act. Our Committee would not be as active or successful without her incredible work. None of these accomplishments happen by chance. They are the result of hard work and years of building relationships on the Hill, in the administration, and in New York. She understands how this institution works--and how it should work--and she knows how to do the necessary work to turn a simple bill into an organizing tool for a movement. She has a unique ability to build relationships and work with others to get a job done. That is what makes her so effective in creating lasting change. And I am not the only one to hold that view. Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins has said, Lisette ``has given a great deal of service to this House and to me and to my staff personally. She will be missed, on both sides of this aisle, because she understands completely what this House should be about and that is actually service and actually getting legislation done.'' But Lisette is more than just a staffer to me. To me, she is like family. She has given our office more than her hard work, she has given us her great sense of humor and ready laugh, her kind support, and her willingness to share her life with us. She tells stories with great passion about her beloved Nationals and Caps, her trips to Spring Training or to the Minnesota State Fair, her love of all things Star Wars, Star Trek, and Disney, and her love of Bravo TV and good books. She has brought all that joy and life with her to work each day in addition to being an incredibly hard working, capable, and brilliant staffer. I know I will miss Lisette greatly, but I am happy she has found a new position working on issues she is passionate about. And I am pleased she will continue to pursue those passions both in and out of the office every day. I wish her luck and joy in all her future endeavors. And so, it is only fitting to say as a final farewell, ``Lisette, may the Force be with you.''

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 246. This resolution, modeled on legislation passed by the New York City Council, is fully consistent with the First Amendment and affirms the rights of those who support the global BDS movement to voice their opinions. Importantly, it also puts Congress on Record rejecting this misguided and deceptive movement that is neither progressive in its conduct nor pro-peace in its ultimate mission. BDS proponents advocate for a complete boycott of Israeli businesses, individuals, and institutions--including academic institutions, which are supposed to be bastions of intellectual freedom--hypocritically seeking to deny all Israeli citizens the same rights and freedoms that BDS supporters claim that they themselves are denied. Not only does the movement, at times, invoke anti-Semitic tropes and seemingly promote violence, it unfairly blames one party in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and does nothing to promote direct negotiations to achieve a two-state solution, which is the only path to a fair peace. In fact, the founder of the movement, when asked whether BDS would end when Palestinians were able to establish their own state, flatly says ``no.'' That tells you everything you need to know, Mr. Speaker. Instead of promoting peace and a two-state solution, the mission of BDS is clear: to delegitimize Israel, regardless of its policies or conduct, and to deny the Jewish people, and only the Jewish people, the right of national self-determination. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.