Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of endorsement of the assault weapons ban from the Major Cities Chiefs Association, a professional organization of law enforcement executives representing the largest cities in the United States. Major Cities Chiefs Association, July 20, 2022. Hon. Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Jim Jordan, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Nadler and Ranking Member Jordan: I write on behalf of the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA), a professional organization of law enforcement executives representing the largest cities in the United States and Canada. Thank you for including H.R. 1808, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022, in today's markup. The MCCA was proud to endorse this legislation when it was introduced earlier this Congress. The MCCA has long advocated for sensible firearms and gun safety policies. In 2018, the Association adopted a Firearms Violence Policy that consists of several common-sense reforms, including banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Many law enforcement officials have closely studied assault weapons and firearms with high-capacity magazines and determined they have no reasonable sporting or hunting purpose. Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines also represent a significant threat to law enforcement officers responding to violent crimes. For example, the suspect who murdered NYPD Officers Jason Rivera and Wilbert Mora in January 2022 used a firearm with a high-capacity magazine that allowed his gun to hold 40 additional rounds. Earlier this month, Detroit PD Officer Loren Michael Courts was killed by a suspect with an AK-47-style pistol that would have been banned under H.R. 1808. The MCCA encourages all Members of the Committee to support the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022 and report it favorably during today's markup. Sincerely, Jeri Williams, Chief, Phoenix Police Department, President, Major Cities Chiefs Association.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a report from the Violence Policy Center entitled, ``Target: Law Enforcement, Assault Weapons in the News.'' Section One Introduction: Background on Assault Weapons and Federal Attempts at Their Regulation Assault weapons. Semiautomatic assault weapons are civilian versions of automatic military assault rifles like the AK-47 and the M-16. The civilian guns look the same as their military brethren because they are identical functionally, except for one feature: military assault rifles are machine guns. A machine gun fires continuously as long as its trigger is held back--until it runs out of ammunition. Civilian assault rifles, in contrast, are semi-automatic weapons. The trigger of a semiautomatic weapon must be pulled back separately for each round fired. Because federal law has banned the sale of new machine guns to civilians since 1986 and heavily regulates sales to civilians of older model machine guns, there is virtually no civilian market for military assault weapons. Nonetheless, civilian semiautomatic assault weapons have proven every bit as deadly as their military counterparts. Regulation of assault weapons. The regulation of semiautomatic assault weapons has been a contentious subject for more than two decades. In the 1980s foreign manufacturers (principally China) began dumping semiautomatic versions of the Soviet-designed AK-47 military assault rifle--a ubiquitous staple of the world-wide small arms trade--onto the U.S. civilian firearms market. Colt Industries, a domestic manufacturer, was also marketing the AR-15, a semiautomatic version of its M-16 machine gun, the standard U.S. military infantry rifle. The gun industry introduced these semiautomatic versions of military assault weapons in order to create and exploit new civilian markets. More particularly, the industry found in assault weapons a product to compensate for a slump in handgun sales. Importers and manufacturers rushed copycats and new models to market. By the end of the decade, a roster of semiautomatic assault weapons had become household words, boosted into daily language as much by their glamorization in entertainment media as by their deadly toll on America's streets. These guns included, among others, assault pistols like the MAC-10, MAC-11, and TEC-9, the Ruger Mini-14 rifle, and several versions of the Israeli Military Industries UZI. No comprehensive statistics were available about the misuse of the hundreds of thousands of assault weapons pouring onto the Nation's streets. But by 1988 police departments and other law enforcement agencies were often on the receiving end of assault weapons firepower. Many of them demanded that the federal government take action to stringently control or ban semiautomatic assault weapons. In February 1988, for example, Prince George's County (Maryland) Police Chief Michael J. Flaherty stated, ``The real issue is the safety of our officers.'' Holding up a TEC-9 assault pistol, he added, ``It's not used for hunting, and it's not used for sporting events. In my opinion, they should not be sold in the United States.'' In 1989 the federal government took a modest regulatory step. At the urging of William J. Bennett, the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George H. W. Bush, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) barred the import of a handful of specific models, including AK-type and UZI assault rifles. The move was based on a federal statute that effectively limits the import of firearms to those that are ``generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.'' This ``sporting purposes'' test does not apply to domestically manufactured firearms, however. Law enforcement officials quickly complained that the putative ban did not reach many of the most dangerous weapons they faced, including semiautomatic assault pistols made in the United States (e.g., the MAC-10, MAC-11, and TEC-9, among others). Although the Bush Administration claimed to have been conducting a wide review with the goal of further regulation, strong opposition by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the firearms industry squelched any further regulatory moves by the Administration. Within a year, Bennett announced himself opposed to any further regulation, declaring his opposition at a February 1990 Senate hearing, stating, ``I don't know a damn thing about guns!'' In 1994, President William J. Clinton signed the 1994 federal assault weapons ``ban.'' The law defined assault weapons in two different ways--by a list of specific firearm types, and by a generic description. Thus, the law specifically named 19 types of guns (e.g., ``Norinco, Mitchell and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs'') as assault weapons covered by the putative ``ban.'' It also generally defined as assault weapons semiautomatic firearms that could accept a detachable magazine and had any two of a list of specified design characteristics (e.g., bayonet mount, folding stock). The 1994 law was deeply flawed. At the outset it exempted millions of semiautomatic assault weapons by ``grandfathering'' all such firearms legally owned as of the date of enactment. For these guns, it was as if the law had never been passed. They continued to be bought and sold, many at gun shows where no questions are asked of prospective buyers in nominally ``private'' sales. Moreover, some of the design characteristics by which new production or imports were to be defined as banned assault weapons were simply a laundry list of superficial cosmetic features that had nothing to do with the weapons' most deadly functional features. The gun industry quickly and easily evaded the 1994 law by making slight, cosmetic changes to the supposedly banned firearms. Gun manufacturers and importers soon openly boasted of the ease with which they could circumvent the ban. By the time the 1994 law expired (sunset) in 2004, there were actually many more types and models of assault weapons legally on the civilian market than before the law was passed. In April 1998 the Clinton Administration attempted to staunch the flow of cosmetically redesigned foreign assault weapons by strictly interpreting the ``sporting purposes'' test for imports. The action--taken independent of the 1994 law and intended to close the cosmetic redesign loophole for imports--was reported to have blocked 58 types of assault weapons, including in one swoop importation permits pending at the time for as many as 1.6 million guns. Since this administrative determination and action has never been rescinded, it should have survived the expiration of the broader 1994 assault weapons ban. However, there is substantial evidence--including extensive gun industry advertising--which compels the conclusion that the George W. Bush Administration either ignored or effectively gutted through administrative artifice the 1998 Clinton import controls. This evidence includes the following facts. There are numerous companies that appear to be importing AK-47 and other assault weapons of the type clearly prohibited by the import ban. The Russian American Armory Company offers the Saiga rifle, an AK-47 variant that was one of the guns specifically excluded from import under the 1998 Clinton rule. The Fabrique Nationale Herstal PS90 assault rifle, a favorite of Mexican drug cartels, is manufactured in Belgium and imported by the company's U.S. subsidiary, FN USA, according to the company's catalogs and promotional materials. There seems to have been a substantial increase in the past few years of assault weapons made primarily from imported parts that skirt the import ban by incorporating a small, minimum number of US-made parts into imported assault weapons (27 C.F.R. Sec. 478.39 prohibits the assembly of a semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun using more than 10 enumerated parts that are imported if the assembled firearm is prohibited from importation under 18 USC 925(d)(3)). ATF has further weakened the prohibition on imported assault weapons by placing certain extremely problematic assault rifles on the ``curios or relics'' list. Inclusion on the ``curios or relics'' list makes a shotgun or rifle automatically eligible for importation (18 USC Sec. 925(e)(1)). The most problematic of these are certain SKS assault rifles manufactured in Yugoslavia and Albania. The SKS type assault rifle is the ``rifle most commonly encountered by law enforcement'' according to ATF and is frequently used to kill police officers. The Clinton Administration specifically banned SKSs from China and Russia from import through trade agreements because they are so frequently involved in crime. There are examples of firearms being imported that seem to clearly fall outside of the ``sporting purposes'' test articulated in 925(d)(3). For example, J&G Sales advertises ``Romanian AK Pistol[s]'' along with Romanian and Hungarian AK-47 assault rifles. For all practical purposes, it thus appears that the federal government has abandoned all attempts to regulate commerce in assault weapons into and within the United States. As a result, an unknown but certainly substantial number of foreign assault weapons poured into the United States during the Bush Administration and continue to under the Obama Administration. This is in addition to the enormous number of firearms exempted from, or manufactured in easy evasion of, the 1994 law. The only meaningful attempts at regulating this flood of killing machines exist at the state level. One outstanding example is California's assault weapons ban, which has been hammered into an effective ban after the now-predictable gun industry attempts to evade the intent of the original law. Even California's law, however, is undermined by the lack of a strong and effective federal ban, allowing for out-of-state assault weapons to be illegally trafficked into the state. The current study. This study is a snapshot of the effect of America's laissez-faire policy toward assault weapons. Based on reports of assault weapons in the news over a two- year span, it makes clear that assault weapons are frequently used in crime and confiscated from criminals. Moreover, it demonstrates that the number of incidents in which law enforcement officers are reported to have been confronted with assault weapons rose dramatically in the two-year period monitored. Section Two Sources for This Analysis The dearth of data. Firearms enjoy the dubious distinction of being the only consumer product not subject to federal public health and safety regulation. Moreover, there is no national database tracking deaths and injuries from specific types and models of firearms. And only the most rudimentary, summary information is collected at any level about criminal use of firearms. As a result, public policy analysts, legislators, and public health and safety administrators must make do with crude data and anecdotal analysis. This is neither an accident nor a product of inattention. It is the deliberate result of a coldly calculated long-term policy of strangling information about guns and their public health effects designed by the National Rifle Association and its major client, the gun industry, and implemented by an all- too-pliant Congress. The firearms industry and gun lobby know that if as much data were available to the public about death and injury resulting from firearms as is available about, for example tires, toys, or Tacoma pick-up trucks, the gun lobby would lose the public debate. The Tiahrt Amendment. A blatant and crucial example of this iron curtain surrounding information about the carnage and criminality caused by firearms is a federal spending prohibition known as the ``Tiahrt Amendment.'' For the past six fiscal years (2004 through 2010), legislation making appropriations for ATF has contained language severely restricting release of information about guns traced to crime scenes contained in the agency's Firearms Tracing System database. This restriction has become known as the ``Tiahrt Amendment,'' after its principal sponsor, Representative Todd Tiahrt of Kansas. For many years, crime gun tracing data was publicly available under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). It was an imperfect but extraordinarily useful surrogate for a badly needed, but nonexistent, national firearms and public health database and tracking system. Crime gun tracing data was routinely used by city officials and law enforcement agencies to determine the sources of illegally trafficked firearms and to identify corrupt gun dealers and the types of guns most often traced to crime. The ``Tiahrt Amendment'' cut off even this basic data. It prohibits ATF from releasing any data contained in the database, except in a limited fashion to individual law enforcement agencies. There is also a prohibition on use of the data in civil litigation. Proponents of the ``Tiahrt'' restrictions claim that the release of tracing data could interfere with ongoing law enforcement investigations. However, prior to implementation of the ``Tiahrt Amendment'' exemptions to the FOIA enabled ATF to withhold any information that could interfere with law enforcement investigations. The FOIA explicitly protects from disclosure any information that would interfere with enforcement or reveal confidential information. Moreover, ATF compilations of tracing data (e.g., top 10 crime guns) bore no conceivable relation to the compromise of any investigation. The ``Tiahrt Amendment'' simply represents an unwarranted and cynical restriction on public access to information, enacted in the interest of protecting the gun industry and acquiesced to by a Congress frightened by the

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins). MR. HIGGINS of New York. Mr. Speaker, no technology advances more quickly in our society than the technology of killing. Every day, weapons of mass destruction are being made and manipulated to kill more people more quickly. In Buffalo, New York, May 14, one shooter, a racist shooter, went into a supermarket on Jefferson Avenue and shot 13 people, killing 10 of them. The shooting started and was completed in 2 minutes and 3 seconds; one shooter. I often heard it said that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. There was a good guy with a gun in the store that day that was working security; a retired 30-year-veteran of the Buffalo Police Department. But he was helpless because he was outgunned by the bad guy with the gun who had an assault rifle. I thank Mr. Cicilline for his leadership on this issue, for his thoughtful approach to this, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader of the House.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The previous speaker on the Republican side said that citizens must be able to meet the government with equal arms. The United States Government has hydrogen bombs. Does he think that every citizen ought to have a hydrogen bomb? Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that assault weapons are the weapon of choice for mass shooters and those who target law enforcement. They are designed for ruthless efficiency, killing the most people in the shortest amount of time. The gentleman from Ohio is right, I did say in the committee, ``Spare us the BS.'' I meant the Republican BS about the Constitution, about the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is designed not to allow people to fight the government. Do they want to take up arms against American troops? Is that what they say? That is what they say. You saw what that did with the insurrection we had recently, and that was a mild case. No, the Second Amendment is designed to allow for a well-regulated militia, which is to say in our day the National Guard. The assault weapons ban would take the weapons of war off our streets and save countless lives, and that is why it is supported by all associations of police, the American Federation of Teachers, the American College of Physicians, the American Public Health Association, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Major Cities Chiefs Association. They know what they are doing. The assault weapons ban would take these weapons of war off our streets. It would prevent more of the Uvaldes, more of the Parklands, more of the Tree of Life synagogues. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of Amendment 159, which would increase and decreases funding from the Office of the DOI Secretary by $4,000,000. The intent of Amendment 159 is to increase the funding of the DOI's 9/11 Memorial Act Grant Program for FY2023 from $4 million to $8 million. Authorized by Congress with the passing of the bipartisan 9/11 Memorial Act in 2018 and signed into law in 2019, the program provides funding for the operation, security, and maintenance of a memorial commemorating the victims of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and United Flight 93 on September 11, 2001, and the victims of the attack on the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993. Awardees are selected for their extraordinary commitment to honoring the lives lost on 9/11, and those who risked their own lives to save others. We have endeavored, as a Nation, to ensure that the 9/11 Memorials continue to stand as places of reflection and remembrance for every American. Every generation should know the tragic events of that Tuesday morning and the heroism of those who rushed back to the burning Pentagon and onto the pile at Ground Zero to put out fires, search for survivors, clear debris, and rebuild for months and years. The funding provided by the 9/11 Memorial Act Grant Program is critical to ensuring that memorials--like the acre-wide reflecting pools in the footprint of the Twin Towers in New York and the solemn benches marking each life lost on the grounds of the Pentagon--continue to provide sacred and inspiring spots accessible to millions of visitors for decades to come. I urge my colleagues to vote Yea on Bipartisan En Bloc 7 and final passage of H.R. 8294.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), the chair of the Equality Caucus and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 8404.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8404 the Respect for Marriage Act would reaffirm that marriage equality is, and must remain, the law of the land. Over the past several decades, millions of LGBTQ people in loving and supportive relationships have married and formed families, particularly after the Supreme Court ruled, in Obergefell v. Hodges, that the Constitution protects marriage equality. An estimated 2 million children are being raised by LGBTQ families today. An enormous body of research shows that stable and loving families are the foundation for children's well-being and success, and children do best when their families have the critical legal protections to care for one another. Thankfully, marriage equality remains constitutionally protected, and there is no indication that it will be overturned in the foreseeable future. It is--and should forever be considered--settled law. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court's recent position in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, which extinguished the constitutional right to abortion, has raised concerns among some people that other rights rooted in the constitutional right to privacy may be at risk, notwithstanding the Court's assurance that Dobbs was limited to abortion. This includes the right to marriage equality. In fact, in a concurring opinion in Dobbs, Justice Clarence Thomas explicitly called on the Court to reconsider its decisions protecting other fundamental rights, including the right to same-sex marriage. And although Justice Thomas did not mention the right to interracial marriage, that right relies on the same constitutional doctrines as the right to same-sex marriage, and, therefore, it could be vulnerable to a legal challenge in the future as well. Even if we accept the Court's assurance in Dobbs that its decision does not call other rights into question, Congress should provide additional reassurance that marriage equality is a matter of settled law. All married people who are building their lives together must know that the government will respect and recognize their marriages--for all time. The Respect for Marriage Act, which I introduced with the co-chairs of the LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus, the chairs of the Congressional Tri- Caucus, and the House Democratic Caucus chair, Hakeem Jeffries, is an updated version of the bill that I first introduced in 2009. The first provision would repeal the odious Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA--the 1996 law that discriminates against married same-sex couples. While that law was ruled unconstitutional, it remains on the books, and it must be removed. The bill would also enshrine marriage equality for Federal law purposes and would ensure that States give full legal effect to valid out-of-state marriages regardless of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of the individuals in the marriage. This legislation would provide additional stability for the lives that families have built upon the foundation of our fundamental rights. Congress must pass the Respect for Marriage Act to dispel any concern or any uncertainty for families worried by the implications of the Dobbs decision. And it must pass the Respect for Marriage Act to enshrine in law the equality and liberty that our Constitution guarantees. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1232, I call up the bill (H.R. 8404) to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.