Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, last year, Congress passed an updated formula for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (the HOPWA program). The change was necessary to ensure the program better reflected how the HIV/AIDS epidemic is changing in this country. However, at the current HOPWA funding levels, the new formula leaves several jurisdictions, including New York City and Miami, at risk of losing funding for this important program. In a program as efficient as HOPWA, when grantees lose funding, people living with AIDS lose their housing. Research clearly demonstrates that housing instability leads to worse health outcomes for those living with HIV/AIDS, and these potential cuts could have a devastating impact on these patients and their families. The new formula will only be effective in addressing the AIDS housing crisis if we maintain adequate funding levels. My amendment increases funding for HOPWA by $19 million, ensuring that, under the new formula, no jurisdiction loses funding in Fiscal Year 2018. The amendment is fully offset through the HUD Information Technology Fund. I thank Chairman Diaz-Balart and Ranking Member Price for their long- standing support of HOPWA and for accepting this important amendment to protect people living with AIDS and their families. I look forward to continuing our work on HOPWA in the future. I also speak for all New Yorkers in lending our support to Chairman Diaz-Balart and his district in the face of Hurricane Irma, just as they stood with us during Superstorm Sandy.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strike sections 8094 and 8095 of the bill that prohibit the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States and prohibit the use of funds to construct or modify facilities in the United States for Guantanamo detainees. These provisions are designed to further delay the transfer of detainees out of Guantanamo. Guantanamo is costing us a fortune. It costs the American taxpayer $10 million a year to keep a single detainee in Guantanamo, and only $78,000 to keep a detainee in a Federal maximum security prison in the United States. That is a waste of $440 million a year. Perhaps, most importantly, it is a question of values. What is most offensive is not that the prisoners are at Guantanamo, as opposed to some prison in the United States, but that we are holding people without any hearing, without any due process, essentially forever. That is against all American values. Mr. Chairman, we have debated Guantanamo amendments every year, multiple times a year. The last time was 2 weeks ago. It is an issue I care deeply about, and I offer this amendment again. However, yesterday, the President took an action that is so egregious, and so offensive, that I feel compelled to use a portion of my time to address it directly. Yesterday's attack by the Commander in Chief on our military's Active-Duty transgender personnel is appalling. Transgender individuals are part of the fabric of America and have always been part of our military, whether we have historically acknowledged them or not. The arguments against allowing transgender servicemembers to serve openly in our military are the same arguments that have been used against every other group that has been prohibited from serving in our country's history--including Black and Latino men, women, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Each time the doors of our military open farther to better reflect the diversity of our Nation, the same tired and discredited arguments are brought back: that any individual in the new group, regardless of his or her ability, is unfit to serve and that their service will disrupt unit cohesion.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself an additional 1 minute. Not only should all willing and able Americans be allowed and encouraged to serve--they already do. A report prepared for the Department of Defense estimates thousands of transgender individuals serve today, without issue. The President must not impose blanket bans that prejudge servicemembers based on their identity, rather than their own merits. President Trump is attacking people who have shown a willingness-- indeed, an eagerness--to risk their lives in the service of our country. It is apparent that the decision to ban transgender people from military service was taken without consulting Secretary of Defense Mattis, who seemed surprised by the tweets, or the military, which seems at a loss as to how to implement the order. Even if this bigoted order is motivated by political opportunism, it disgraces our country and must be rescinded. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it sounds nice to say they can go home to their country from which they came, where presumably the foreign-flagged ship operates, but that is not the case. These are often American-owned ships or European-owned ships, and they are flagged in a country of convenience--Liberia, Panama, or wherever--where the worker may have no connection whatsoever, where the ship, for that matter, has no real connection other than flying the flag of convenience, and where there may not be a very decent court system. That is why the practice has been, since before our independence--it has worked well the entire history of our country--that a foreign citizen working on a ship that calls in the United States, if denied the maintenance and cure that the ship is supposed to take care of someone on the high seas, then they can sue in an American court. We have always done this. There has been no showing of hardship whatsoever. Yes, some rich cruise line operators would like, perhaps, to get rid of this obligation, but that is no excuse. This is an antilabor, an antihuman amendment. It ought to be defeated. Mr. Chairman, I urge its defeat, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this pernicious antilabor amendment that would do nothing but make it easier for U.S.- owned but foreign-flagged cruise ship operators to exploit and abuse the seafarers they employ. The right for seafarers to seek maintenance and cure for injuries, illness, and damages at sea has been a part of U.S. maritime law for as long as U.S. ships have flown the flag on the high seas. The effect of this amendment is clear: it would restrict foreign seafarers employed on foreign-flagged cruise ships from filing claims for damages or expenses related to personal injury, illness, or even death, in a U.S. court. This provision is completely contrary to a general maritime law principle that has been around since at least the 12th century, a principle that has remained applicable because of the international nature of shipping and the plain fact that, even today, ship operators maintain considerable leverage over individual seafarers. This provision also violates an international convention that the U.S. has ratified. Under the Shipowners' Liability Convention, national laws or regulations have to be interpreted and enforced to ensure equality of treatment to all seafarers, irrespective of nationality, domicile, or race. This amendment would shred that international obligation. It is also contrary to the principles and terms defining seafarers' rights under the International Maritime Labor Convention. It is also worth mentioning that the amendment before us may be unnecessary because, in many cases, seafarer contracts contain binding arbitration clauses. In any event, it makes no sense to deny access to U.S. courts for foreign seafarers seeking compassion for maintenance and cure claims. The cruise lines can easily avoid frivolous lawsuits. All they need do is honor their longstanding customary responsibility to pay for the care and recovery of the seafarers they employ when they are ill or injured. In closing, no one has provided any evidence--much less, compelling evidence--to justify the reversal of longstanding seafarer protections. In the absence of evidence, the House should reject this unwarranted amendment. This vote is purely to injure seafarers, purely to disobey maritime conventions to which we are a party, purely to disobey laws of the sea from the 12th century that we have obeyed since we obtained our independence from England, for no purpose other than to help often American-owned--not always--but foreign-flagged cruise ship lines. There is no purpose for this amendment. The House should reject this amendment as it has in the past. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Hartzler Amendment. Transgender individuals are part of the fabric of America and have always been part of our military, whether we have historically acknowledged them or not. Selectively denying healthcare to trans servicemembers, which is available to other members of the military, only serves to alienate, undermine, disrespect and ultimately harm those serving our country. This amendment is a shameful and targeted attempt to enact a conservative agenda that singles out transgender individuals. It circumvents, our military's doctors and uses the denial of healthcare to force currently serving, and future transgender members of our armed services from their posts entirely. Transition related care is considered medically necessary by nearly every major medical association. It should not need to be said that when a military physician determines that hormones, surgery or other transition related care is necessary, we must treat it as we would any other medical care. Anything less is an abdication of our duty to provide healthcare to those who have chosen to serve our country. Using finances to tie the hands of our military's medical professionals to target transgender individuals demonstrates an appalling lack of respect for our servicemembers, their doctors and the democratic ideals of equality our country was founded on. I urge my colleagues to support our servicemembers by opposing this amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, it costs the American taxpayer $10 million a year per detainee to keep a detainee in Guantanamo. To keep that same detainee in a Federal maximum security penitentiary in the United States would cost $78,000. That is a ridiculous waste of our military budget. Nobody has ever escaped from a Federal maximum security prison. Transferring these prisoners to Federal maximum security prisons in the United States would pose no danger to anybody. And yes, some of these prisoners may be the worst of the worst. Many are not. They were not all caught on the battlefield. Some of them were sold for bounties by people in different tribes or groups in Afghanistan. Some of them were not captured on battlefields at all. Some of them are innocent; some are not. But to keep them in Guantanamo for $10 million each per year with no possibility of getting out is an affront to our values. It is an affront to our liberties. It is an affront to our military budget and to our pocketbooks, and it is, frankly, plain foolish. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will strike section 1022 of the bill that prohibits the transfer or release of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States. We are currently imprisoning 41 people at Guantanamo, 26 of whom are being detained indefinitely without charge or trial, with no proceedings, no hearings, and no opportunity to plea their case, essentially forever. Beyond existing as an affront to fundamental American values, Guantanamo is a dangerous counterproductive relic of the past. National security experts and our own military commanders agree that Guantanamo harms our national security by serving as a recruiting tool for terrorists and damaging our relationships with allies. Furthermore, it is increasingly difficult to justify the annual cost of holding each Guantanamo detainee, which is now climbing to an incredible $10 million a year per detainee. Guantanamo is now the most expensive prison on Earth, costing U.S. taxpayers approximately $445 million per year. This is especially disappointing when you consider that each prisoner in Federal maximum security penitentiaries costs only $78,000 a year. Not only does our refusal to close Guantanamo diminish our legal and ethical reputation throughout the world, it also costs American citizens astronomical sums of money for no purpose. We have made excellent progress towards reducing the numbers of prisoners, and we should continue to do so. About 35 percent of released prisoners were confirmed or suspected of returning to the battlefield during the Bush administration. But the Obama administration developed a robust framework to ensure released detainees were more closely supervised to reduce the likelihood of a return to the battlefield. The Bush administration struck diplomatic bills to repatriate large batches of prisoners to countries like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan in bulk, and many recidivists came from those batches. By contrast, the Obama administration developed an individualized review process by six agencies to determine whether to recommend transferring a detainee. Over time, it also developed more careful diplomatic and monitoring plans with receiving countries to ease a prisoner's reintegration into that country's society. When the first detainees arrived at Guantanamo in January 2002, America was still reeling from the 9/11 attacks, and the war in Afghanistan had only just begun. Yet, 15 years later, it is clear that the war on terror has dragged on for too long, as we have expanded our involvement in costly clashes in Yemen, Somalia, and Syria. In doing so, we have embroiled ourselves in needless, endless conflict, without an exit strategy or a clear strategy for success. The recent vote for Congresswoman Barbara Lee's amendment to repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force in the House Appropriations Committee demonstrated that Congress is finally realizing a blank check for perpetual war must be reevaluated and reconsidered. Similarly, as we reconsider the 2001 AUMF, I look forward to working together in a bipartisan manner to close the Guantanamo prison, reevaluate our approach to these detainees, and close another dark and sad chapter that has damaged our national honor. Guantanamo's continued operation provides a momentous challenge to the founding principles of the United States, that no person may be deprived of liberty without due process of law, and certainly may not be deprived of liberty indefinitely without due process of law, and for each day that its doors remain open, it becomes increasingly difficult for our Nation to claim the moral and ethical high ground. We must close the detention facility at Guantanamo now, and this amendment will help us achieve that goal. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. I will simply observe that this amendment prohibits the President from transferring prisoners. Do you really think that Donald Trump, the current President, needs the prohibition that he would transfer prisoners to maximum security prisons in the United States if it weren't safe to do so? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes. This amendment will strike section 1023 of the bill that prohibits the use of funds to construct or modify facilities in the United States for Guantanamo detainees. The provision is simply designed to further delay the transferred detainees out of Guantanamo and is unnecessary and counterproductive. The arguments for this amendment and against it are essentially the arguments for and against the previous amendment that we just went through. That amendment prohibited the use of funds to transfer prisoners. This amendment prohibits the use of funds--this provision, rather, prohibits the use of funds to construct facilities in the United States to receive such transferees. It is essentially the same pros and cons. I just want to mention, though, that yes, some of those detainees may be the worst of the worst, but they will still be detained. But some of them are not. They are people who were caught up in bounty situations where they were sold for money because we were giving a bounty if someone claimed that so and so had been in combat against us, but we didn't really know. We now know mistakes were made. We may choose to say some of these people can go home, and others can stay in the United States. It is simply, again, a question that we shouldn't be spending $10 million a person, instead of $78,000 a person, to hold them in secure facilities. The other thing that Ms. Stefanik of New York said I must comment on, she said we are holding people in Guantanamo because if we transfer them to the United States they will enjoy the constitutional rights of prisoners in the United States, and that we don't want to do, for whatever reason. She didn't say. But the fact of the matter is, Guantanamo was built for that purpose because it was thought by the Bush administration initially that people held outside of the Continental United States, in Guantanamo, which is in Cuba, not the United States, would not enjoy constitutional rights, could not use the writ of habeas corpus and other things. However, a series of Supreme Court decisions said that was wrong. The prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay have the same constitutional rights as prisoners held in prisons in the Continental United States, so there is no difference on that whatsoever. You can look up the Supreme Court decisions. They are not secret. And what it comes down to is a prejudice against holding people here because of a ridiculous fear that people will escape from maximum security prisons, which no one has ever done in the United States, and we can't hold dangerous terrorists here, and we shouldn't release terrorists. But nobody is talking about releasing terrorists. And you can hold dangerous terrorists and dangerous mobsters, dangerous all kinds of people, in maximum security facilities in the United States. There are really two things we should do: bring them to maximum security facilities in the United States because it saves a lot of money and because it removes a major recruiting tool for our enemies abroad. And, within constitutional rights, people should have the opportunity to have a hearing. What is most offensive is not that they are at Guantanamo, as opposed to some prison in the United States, what is most offensive is that we are holding some people without any hearing, without any due process, essentially forever. And yes, we have held people as prisoners of war during the pendency of a war. But we don't claim these people are prisoners of war. We don't give them the rights of prisoners of war. We are just holding them. I am not sure how we are holding them, but we are holding them with no claim of any kind of due process, with no finding that they have, in fact, been terrorists in an individual case; and that is just against all American values. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.