Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. We have heard the majority claim over and over that this rule is going to come as a surprise to the gun industry and to those who have purchased stabilizing braces. This is simply not true. There are dozens of videos online of people promoting the use of braces to create short-barreled rifles that circumvent the National Firearms Act. One brace promoter even said the resulting short-barreled rifle could easily fit into a briefcase or a backpack. Let's be clear. The majority is defending the widespread availability without a background check of a brace that allows more rifles to easily fit into a backpack. The majority has seen these promotional videos. We watched them in our hearing and in our markup, yet they continue to seek to invalidate this rule and claim it will come as a surprise. The fact is that those who profit from the sale of these braces have long known that they were circumventing the law. The ATF wrote to one brace manufacturer multiple times over the last 10 years. In 2018, 5 years ago, the ATF, under President Trump, told the brace manufacturer that it was engaging in false advertising by claiming devices were ATF approved, when in fact the ATF had not even evaluated those devices. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a July 18, 2018, letter from the ATF to SB Tactical, a brace manufacturer, stating that they must cease the false advertisement of products as ATF approved when they had not even been evaluated, much less approved by ATF. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Martinsburg, WV. SB Tactical, Saint Petersburg, FL. Dear SB Tactical: This letter is to inform SB Tactical that certain products currently marketed and sold by SB Tactical have not been evaluated nor approved by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch (FTISB). It has come to the attention of FTISB that all of SB Tactical ``braces'' are being marketed as evaluated and approved by ATF as ``pistol stabilizing braces,'' although, in most cases no evaluations or classification have ever occurred. FTISB has found the following statement on the boxes of unevaluated SB Tactical models: ATF Compliant--ATF has reviewed this product and determined that attaching a Pistol Stabilizing Brace to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to NFA control. To date, FTISB has evaluated only two SB15 Tactical submissions: the SB15 brace and the MPX PSB brace. FTISB approved both of these models for use as ``stabilizing braces,'' and classified them as not designed or intended to be used as shouldering devices. However, these classifications were based on the samples as submitted. Any change in the submitted design could change FTISB's classification. Currently, SB Tactical markets more than 20 different designs of ``pistol stabilizing braces.'' While some of these new models are similar to the original evaluated models, several are advertised as being based off shoulder stock designs. FTISB does not approve ``stabilizing braces'' which are similar or based off shoulder stock designs. These are the submitted SB Tactical braces approved by ATF: SB15 (Original submission)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the ATF, the agency specifically tasked with regulating dangerous weapons and keeping them out of the wrong hands, underwent a careful review process that began under the Trump administration. The agency determined that gun owners were exploiting a loophole that allowed stabilizing braces to be used to assemble a short-barreled rifle without being subjected to the existing regulations for such highly dangerous weapons. The ATF then issued a rule, using the standard administrative process, to close this loophole and to protect our communities. There should be nothing controversial about this rule, but Republicans want to overturn this sensible regulation and put more stabilizing braces on the streets and in the hands of more mass shooters. I remind Members that mass shooters have already used stabilizing braces to kill 9 people outside a bar in Dayton in 2019; to kill 10 people, including a responding police officer, at a grocery store in Boulder in 2021; to kill 5 people in an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs last year; and just a few months ago to kill 6 people, including 3 children, at a school in Nashville. Once again, Republicans are putting the interests of the gun industry over the safety of their communities. I urge all Members to oppose this dangerous legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, today, we are considering a bill that would require both houses of Congress to vote to approve, and for the President to sign, a motion of approval for any major rule in progress from our executive branch. We are considering this bill just a week after a splinter group of the far-right Republicans voted down a rule and held our legislative calendar hostage all to prove a point about a debt ceiling that already has passed Congress and has been signed by the President. Even before this radical move, I had no doubt that the REINS Act would grind to a halt the most impactful actions by our regulatory state. Now, after seeing what just a handful of Members will do just to make a point, I am certain that we cannot let bad measures like this one move forward. The REINS Act would frustrate the purpose of government and put our constituents in harm's way. Even if the underlying policy behind the REINS Act was a good idea, which it emphatically is not, I would still argue against it because it is unconstitutional. By allowing the regulation to be blocked from being implemented if even one Chamber declines to pass an approval resolution, the REINS Act is essentially a legislative veto, which the Supreme Court has already held to be unconstitutional. The goal of this legislation, quite simply, is to stop the regulatory process in its tracks, regardless of its impact on public health and safety. The bill purports to give Congress control of the rulemaking process, but Congress already has this power and it exercises it in a number of ways. Congress can delegate authority to agencies with specificity, thus limiting the scope of the agency's authority. It can impose restrictions on rulemaking through appropriations. It can influence rulemaking through oversight activities. If all of these measures are insufficient, we also have the blunt tool of the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress not only to overturn a rule but also to bar the agency from ever passing a substantially similar rule. The REINS Act is not only redundant, it also creates insurmountable procedural hurdles that would stall the approval of rules of major impact, rules that would be highly beneficial to the public's health and safety. It is important to remember why we have regulations in the first place. Congress sets broad policies but we delegate authority to executive agencies because we do not have the expertise to craft technical regulations ourselves. Who here knows how many parts per billion of arsenic should be allowed in our drinking water? Is 10 the proper amount? Should it be 5 or 15? None of us here knows the answer, but the dedicated professionals at our Federal agencies, many of whom have decades of experience and vast technical expertise, undertake a careful process with numerous procedural safeguards to protect our health and safety. The recent smog and pollution much of the East Coast experienced last week as a result of the Canadian wildfires is a great example of why we need an informed regulatory state to act on our behalf. Decades ago, many cities had similar levels of pollutants in the air, clogging our lungs and causing harm to our children and the environment as we saw last week. Thanks to expert-informed policies like those regulations instituted under the Clean Air Act, we rarely have days like we saw last week when our most vulnerable citizens must take shelter inside to avoid breathing the air. Regulations ensure that our air is safe to breathe, our water is safe to drink, our food is safe to eat, and the lifesaving medications we depend on are safe and effective. I feel much better about leaving regulatory decisions to the careful study of agency experts rather than to Members of Congress who want to substitute their judgment, subject to the whims of politics. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this dangerous bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I will note that we have letters representing over 180 public interest organizations, health experts, and labor unions opposed to the REINS Act because of the harm this bill presents to our country's health and welfare. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the letters of opposition. March 9, 2023. Dear Senator/Representative: The following undersigned organizations representing the public health, medical and patient advocacy communities, write to you to state our strong opposition to S. 184 and H.R. 277--the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023 (REINS Act), and we ask you to oppose this harmful legislation. The REINS Act is a threat to public health. It would add major roadblocks to health-protective regulations by requiring Congress to approve all ``major'' rules issued by federal agencies within a 70-day window. This includes public health rules from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, among other federal agencies that protect the health and safety of American citizens. Under the REINS Act, the default would be Congress blocking important and critical protections including clean air, public health, safety and healthcare measures that have already been authorized by current law. The REINS act would unilaterally weaken the implementation of public health and safety safeguards that require the promulgation of significant rules that benefit millions of Americans. These include rules that are statutorily required to prevent deaths, illness and injury and to protect the public health. Additionally, the REINS Act would give Congress the power to prevent a ``major'' rule from being effectively implemented simply by taking no action. This step delays safeguards and means that agencies would not only have to reckon with a significantly longer time frame to pass any meaningful rules, but also that the health and safety of the public would remain in limbo and under threat. As we've tragically witnessed in East Palestine, Ohio, federal rules are imperative to ensuring the health and safety of the public. The REINS Act would also hinder the ability of federal agencies to act and respond to threats swiftly and effectively. While there are some exceptions that allow a rule to be implemented for one 90-day period without Congressional approval--it is not enough. The REINS Act is a threat to our nation's health. We urge you to oppose the REINS Act and other similar legislation. Sincerely, American Lung Association, Allergy & Asthma Network, Alliance for Nurses for Healthy Environments, ALS Association, American Heart Association, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Climate Psychiatry Alliance, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Health Care Without Harm, Hemophilia Federation of America, National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, National Environmental Health Association, National Organization for Rare Disorders, Physicians for Social Responsibility.

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill to committee. If the House rules permitted, we would have offered the motion with an important amendment to the bill. The amendment would have ensured that vulnerable groups like veterans and their health will not be harmed by the politicization and delay of critical executive branch rules under the REINS Act. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the proposed text of the amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, although the REINS Act will harm everyone, we must at least ensure that those who serve in our Armed Forces are not further harmed by this legislation. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is just the latest effort by Republicans to dismantle and destroy the regulatory process, a process that protects our health and safety each and every day. Regulations ensure that we have clean air to breathe, clear water to drink, and safe food to eat. They ensure that children's toys and cribs are safe, that medications are safe and effective, and that the planes, trains, and automobiles we depend on for transportation will keep us safe. They ensure that consumers are protected from fraud and discrimination, that workers are treated fairly, that veterans are fairly compensated for their service, and so much more. However, Republicans want to stop this process in its tracks and put our health and safety at risk, just as they stopped our process of legislating last week, all to prove a point to leadership. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this dangerous legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I will not repeat myself. For all the reasons I gave a couple of minutes ago, this is a very bad bill. It is very dangerous legislation for the peace and health and safety of the people of the United States. Mr. Chairman, I urge everyone to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, due to a personal matter, I was not in Washington, D.C. on June 5, 2023, and as a result, missed two votes. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 245, and YEA on Roll Call No. 246.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, recognizing Jewish American Heritage Month and the important contributions that Jewish Americans have made to our history, our society, and our culture. I thank Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz for introducing this resolution and for her tireless work on this topic. We, in the House of Representatives, have been marking Jewish American Heritage Month since 2005. Of course, Jewish contributions to the mosaic of the United States began centuries ago. In fact, the Jewish-American community dates back to the mid-17th century when 23 Jews fleeing the Portuguese Inquisition found refuge in what we now call New York City in 1654. Jewish families have put down roots across this country, and thousands and thousands more have crossed oceans to seek security, freedom, and religious liberty. That small Jewish community, which began with 23 individuals fleeing the inquisition, has grown into more than 6 million people. Jewish Americans have become part of the central fabric of the United States. As the most senior Jewish Member of Congress, I am proud to represent a district with one of the largest Jewish communities in the United States and one that is home to so many historic Jewish institutions that represent the rich diversity of this community. This includes Congregation Shearith Israel, which was founded by those 23 Jews in 1654, as well as the first Reconstructionist synagogue, the Society for the Advancement of Judaism, which hosted the first bat mitzvah in the United States and the first Ashkenazic synagogue in the United States, Congregation B'Nai Jeshurun, which split off from Shearith Israel in 1829. This May, during Jewish American Heritage Month, while we celebrate that history and the contributions of Jewish Americans, we also recommit ourselves to fighting anti-Semitism in all its forms. Anti-Semitism is not a new presence in our society. It is a scourge that has plagued Jewish communities around the world for millennia. Still, the harrowing recent uptick in anti-Semitic attacks across the country means that we must redouble our efforts to combat this hatred. I applaud the White House for developing the first-ever National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, which was released just last week. This historic effort includes concrete steps that we can all take, including civil society, local government, Congress, and the executive branch, to bring to life the priorities brought forth by this strategy. This month and every month, we fight against anti-Semitism and celebrate the countless contributions made by Jewish Americans. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Manning).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman).

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, during Jewish American Heritage Month, we celebrate the rich history and many contributions of Jewish Americans. We also recognize that anti-Semitism continues to be a scourge on our society that we must combat in all its forms. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) for bringing forward this important resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker referred to some remarks I made, and they are accurate. What I said was that substantial resources should be taken from the police and given to mental health services, and that was done. About a billion dollars was taken from the police department in New York City by the city council and the mayor and given to mental health services. That made sense. Why? Because when someone is acting out on the subway, when someone is threatening on the subway, what you usually need is a mental health professional there, not a policeman who doesn't know how to handle it. Since a lot of resources were devoted to mental health, the situation in the subways generally and on the streets has gotten much better. It has worked. I can't speak for anybody else, but I can say that when the gentleman says we should honor local police, he is also saying we should not honor Federal police. This resolution does not honor Federal police. It does not honor the ATF, the FBI, or thousands of Federal law enforcement officers, the law enforcement officers who protected us on January 6 from a far-right attack. It talks about leftist violence, but it refuses to talk about rightwing violence. It is not a balanced or fair resolution. It seeks to give a distorted picture of what is going on in this country, and that is why we cannot support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is nothing more than empty rhetoric designed to score political points. It does nothing to help our law enforcement officers do their jobs. It does nothing to solve crimes or promote justice. It does nothing to take deadly weapons like those used to target law enforcement off our streets, and it does nothing to make our communities safer. It is also wildly misleading and full of incendiary rhetoric that does not match reality. Very conspicuously, it even fails to recognize the service or contributions of Federal, State, or Tribal law enforcement officers. It is worth remembering that when the Republicans passed their rules package at the beginning of the Congress, it included several supposedly ``ready to go on day one'' bills. An earlier version of this resolution was included in that list, but it never made it to the floor. Now we know why. The problem is that the original version praised all law enforcement, not just local law enforcement, as this resolution does. Why was that a problem? Because as we have learned in recent months, House Republicans now support defunding the police at the Federal level. Don't take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Chairman Jordan told FOX News that he wants to ``look at the appropriations process and limit funds going to some of these agencies.'' He later made clear he was referring to the FBI and the Department of Justice. Mr. Biggs has called directly for defunding those agencies, and Mr. Gaetz has introduced a bill that would eliminate the ATF altogether. Limiting the resolution to local law enforcement also helps Republicans paper over an embarrassing split in their caucus over whether even to recognize the contributions of our brave Capitol Police officers who protected us on January 6. I remind Members that 41 Republicans voted against awarding Congressional Gold Medals to the Capitol Police officers and the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department in recognition of their service on January 6. That must be why the resolution states that violent leftist extremists have attacked law enforcement, but it makes no mention of the violent mob of far-right extremists and white supremacists who stormed the Capitol that day injuring 140 police officers with five officers losing their lives in the days after. H. Con. Res. 40 is a hopelessly misleading resolution that omits crucial context and ignores crime trends in the country, including the disturbing rise in gun violence and the higher per capita murder rate in States won by Donald Trump. While Republicans want to talk tough with nonbinding resolutions about funding the police--local police that is--it was Democrats who passed bill after bill last Congress to actually fund and support the police. So where were Republicans when Democrats went about the serious work of legislating? When given the opportunity to put action behind their cheap rhetoric, time and again, Republicans voted ``no.'' For example, last Congress Democrats advanced the Invest to Protect Act which would have authorized $300 million in grants to law enforcement agencies with fewer than 125 officers to smaller localities. This legislation passed with bipartisan support, but 55 Republican Members voted against it. Democrats also advanced the VICTIM Act led by Congresswoman and former police chief Val Demings which would have provided grants totaling up to $100 million per year to law enforcement agencies to help them solve violent crimes and close outstanding cases. Mr. Speaker, 178 Republicans voted against it. Democrats advanced the assault weapons ban which was supported by the Major Cities Chiefs Association and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives because they know that these weapons of war are used to murder law enforcement officers and to terrorize their communities. Nearly every Republican voted ``no.'' House Democrats worked with Republican Senator John Cornyn--who is not someone known to be soft on crime--to pass the Law Enforcement De- Escalation Training Act, a bill that increases safety for law enforcement and community members alike. This bipartisan bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent, but when it came to the House, 159 Republicans voted against it. This is not and never has been a serious approach to legislating. Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 40 is a wasted opportunity to advance meaningful legislation that would support the men and women of law enforcement who put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, before recognizing the next speaker, let me also point out that this resolution also claims that progressive politicians actively encourage resentment toward local law enforcement. When we tried to remove such misleading claims during the markup, Republicans said no. We tried to unite behind what should have been the point of this resolution, support of all law enforcement without language that shamed or demonized Members and misled Americans, but Republicans refused. That is another reason we have to oppose this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).