Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey (Ms. Sherrill).

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Nevada.

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

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

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

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

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the difference between this country and other countries is only that in this country do we have mass shootings and mass murders of children. No other country has them. We know from the experience in New Jersey, as Ms. Sherrill told us, that when we pass strong gun control legislation, we can greatly reduce the number of children and adults shot. We hear from the other side of the aisle, ``No, we don't want to do that.'' They are right: This legislation is the beginning. This legislation is not perfect. It is a bipartisan compromise. It is not nearly what we should do. It is not nearly what the House did, but it is a beginning. It is a beginning in saving lives in this country. Anyone who stands in its way is standing in the way of saving lives in this country. I will not allow myself or anyone I associate with to stand in the way of saving lives, many lives. Again, I remind you, this is the only country that has it, and it is not because we have more mentally ill than other countries. It is because we do not have the gun control laws that other countries do. Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to vote for this bill as a good beginning, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise to thank Jordan Dashow for his service to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Jordan received his bachelor's degree from Tufts University and began his career in public policy as a Legislative Assistant with the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. After a further three years of civil and human rights advocacy as a Federal Policy Manager with the Human Rights Campaign, Jordan joined the Judiciary Committee as a Professional Staff Member in 2019. Jordan supported the full committee's senior staff and me directly. As part of my administrative team, Jordan innovated and systematized many areas of personnel management. Over time, Jordan's duties grew to include helping me prepare for the weekly meeting of Committee Chairs. He contributed to countless projects with keen research, writing, and policy analysis. Jordan also worked closely with the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. Building on his past experience with the legislation as an advocate, Jordan contributed significantly to our work on the Equality Act which passed the House both in the previous Congress and this Congress. Jordan also supported the Subcommittee's efforts on reproductive rights issues, church and state issues, and anti-Muslim and anti-Asian discrimination issues. Reflecting our high regard for his work, Jordan assisted Counsel in preparing Committee Members for the markup of the PRESS Act and wrote the initial draft of the committee report for the CROWN Act. Finally, Jordan played an integral role in the growth and development of our Committee internship program, an essential source of substantive support for myself and the Committee staff. As a coordinator of the program, Jordan successfully advocated for interns to receive pay, well before that became the norm, and managed professional development programming such as detailed orientations and our weekly Intern Speaker Series. Furthermore, Jordan always worked to ensure that my commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion was reflected in our intern hiring practices and culture. He is already remembered as a determined advocate and committed mentor by the many classes of interns that he shepherded through our Committee, and I am grateful to Jordan for helping make our internship program one of the strongest on Capitol Hill. For three years, I have been fortunate to count Jordan among my staff. I, and the American people, have greatly benefited from his passion for public service, his intellect, and his commitment to excellence. Jordan has all the qualities of an excellent staffer and the clear potential to be a great lawyer when he graduates from Georgetown Law in the coming years. We will greatly miss Jordan as he embarks on the next chapter of his career on Capitol Hill. We thank Jordan Dashow for his service to the Committee and wish him the best of luck with this new chapter.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1153, I call up the bill (H.R. 2377) to authorize the issuance of extreme risk protection orders, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2377.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, over the past several weeks, we have watched in horror as gun violence has touched communities across the country and dozens of people, young and old, have lost their lives. The details of each case may differ, each tragic in its own way, but there is one theme that comes up most often; someone deeply troubled, experiencing some sort of crisis, had easy access to firearms. And all too often, the warning signs were clear, but nothing was done to keep guns out of their hands before it was too late. H.R. 2377, the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, provides a sensible means by which someone who is exhibiting dangerous behavior can be prevented from possessing or purchasing firearms before tragedy strikes. This legislation, introduced by Representative Lucy McBath, authorizes Federal courts to issue an extreme risk protection order, or ERPO, temporarily removing firearms from a person in crisis and preventing them from purchasing firearms. This only occurs after the court determines that there is evidence demonstrating that the person poses an imminent danger of injuring himself, herself, or others. The bill also includes legislation by Representative Salud Carbajal, which provides funding to States to enact ERPO statutes of their own. We know that extreme risk laws save lives. We have witnessed their effectiveness in State after State, beginning in 2016, when California passed the first such law. Since then, 18 other States and the District of Columbia have enacted similar laws. An analysis of the first 3 years of California's extreme risk law found that these orders were used for 58 mass shooting threats, including six in which a minor threatened to target a school. These orders were also used in response to 82 threats of suicide, and they worked. No suicides occurred among individuals who were subject to the orders. Federal courts have long been bastions of due process and, accordingly, this legislation includes strong due process provisions that strike the appropriate balance between protecting the rights of the gun owner and ensuring community safety. Every court that has reviewed laws similar to this bill has found that the procedural safeguards are sufficient. And as then-Seventh Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett wrote, ``History is consistent with common sense: It demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns.'' Madam Speaker, the Constitution does not require us to wait until lives are lost. As we address the scourge of gun violence, a blight that killed 45,000 Americans in 2020 alone, let us remember that there are no perfect solutions. We are painfully aware that we cannot do enough to save every life, and there is no one answer that will solve this problem. But we do know that taking guns out of the hands of people who pose a danger to themselves or others would save countless lives. This legislation would take meaningful steps to prevent gun violence tragedies in our communities while, at the same time, protecting the due process of rights of those individuals in crisis. I thank Representatives McBath and Carbajal for their leadership on this issue. I urge all Members to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an extra 30 seconds.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a June 7, 2022, Washington Post article titled ``No, red-flag gun laws don't violate due process rights.'' [From the Washington Post] No, Red-Flag Gun Laws Don't Violate Due Process Rights such laws, also known as `extreme-risk protection orders,' are popular and are embraced by some republican politicians. but some gun-rights activists say they violate the fifth and fourteenth amendments. (Perspective by Joseph Blocher and Jake Charles, June 7, 2022) ``Red flag'' laws, which allow guns to be temporarily taken from people who pose a risk of harm to themselves or others, are one of the few gun-safety regulations that currently have bipartisan support. ``Tm generally inclined to think some kind of red-flag law is a good idea,'' Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said last week, after the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. Key senators have told reporters it's possible an agreement could be reached this week on legislation that would include a provision incentivizing more states to pass such laws. There is strong popular support for red-flag laws--also known as extreme-risk laws--in both parties, and more than a dozen states have adopted them in the past few years alone (bringing the total to 19 plus the District of Columbia). Social science research suggests that they work, most strikingly in preventing gun suicides. So what prevents their wider adoption, including at the federal level? Some gun-rights advocates and their allies in Congress say they violate the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. ``Depriving citizens of Life, Liberty, or Property, without Due Process, is a clear violation of our Constitution,'' Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) tweeted last week. ``Every member of Congress swears an oath to `support and defend' the Constitution. Voting for, or introducing, Red Flag Laws is a blatant violation of that oath.'' But such criticisms are off base. Politicians considering red-flag laws, whether in Congress or state legislatures, should do so based on an accurate understanding of what the Constitution requires. It indeed guarantees ``due process of law'' whenever the government seeks to deprive a person of ``life, liberty, or property.'' But the basic design of existing extreme-risk laws is fully consistent with constitutional commands, as we showed in a recent law review article. In the states where they exist, here's how red-flag laws work: A limited set of people--law enforcement officers, family or household members, and sometimes others--can petition a judge to issue an ``extreme-risk protection order'' (ERPO) requiring a person to temporarily surrender his or her firearms and refrain from acquiring new ones. Depending on the state, the burden of proof the petitioner must meet (to establish that the gun owner indeed presents a risk) varies from ``probable cause'' to ``clear and convincing'' evidence. If the petition is successful, the court can enter a short-term emergency ERPO, usually lasting two weeks or less. In many cases, that's all that is needed-- the crisis can be averted. A longer-term ERPO can only be entered after a full hearing at which the petitioner again bears the burden of proof, usually at a higher threshold, and at which the gun owner can contest the order. If there is a constitutional flaw in this basic structure, it has apparently escaped notice of the entire United States judiciary: Courts have unanimously rejected Second Amendment and due process challenges to ERPO laws, and for good reason. Perhaps surprisingly, the Second Amendment has not been the focus of the constitutional complaints. That's because even ardent Second Amendment defenders like Justice Amy Coney Barrett recognize that ``legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns''--as Barrett wrote in 2019 case, when she was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Courts reviewing extreme- risk laws have upheld them on that very basis. In 2016, for example, a Connecticut appellate court relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedent in holding that Connecticut's statute ``does not implicate the second amendment, as it does not restrict the right oflawabiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of their homes.'' The crux of the political debate has therefore focused on due process--although due-process challenges to red-flag laws have fared no better. Nor should they have. A prime complaint about red-flag laws is that they allow an order to issue before the gun owner has an opportunity to contest the evidence, but the Supreme Court has long recognized that there are ``extraordinary situations where some valid governmental interest is at stake that justifies postponing the hearing until after the event,'' as Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote in a 1971 case. Examples include restraining orders filed by one domestic partner against another, civil commitments for mental illness and the temporary removal of children from parental custody in emergency situations (for instance, when there are credible allegations of abuse). In situations like these, delaying urgent action until after a full hearing can lead to catastrophic outcomes. Given that the Constitution allows emergency action to temporarily remove a person's child before a full hearing, it's hard to argue that it prohibits emergency action to temporarily remove a person's guns. Quite simply, the Constitution does not require society to wait until the trigger is pulled. Though they vary in their particulars, existing extreme- risk laws contain several important procedural safeguards that the Supreme Court has recognized help to forestall abuse and ensure due process. They impose the burden on the petitioner to convince an independent third party; they guarantee active judicial oversight and provide a prompt hearing focusing on the degree of risk; and many states provide specific criminal penalties for filing false or harassing extreme-risk petitions (in addition to existing punishments for perjury). Understanding constitutional requirements is important not only for lawyers and judges, but for those debating gun regulation in public discourse. Time and again, arguments based on misunderstandings of the Constitution have been used to derail reasonable gun regulation. After Sandy Hook, for example, an overwhelming majority of Americans wanted to expand the existing system of background checks for gun sales. Of the minority opposed--some strongly so--the most common reason was that doing so would violate the Second Amendment, yet that position has no support in legal doctrine. We should not once again make the mistake of blaming the Constitution for inaction on gun laws. The structure of extreme-risk laws is entirely consistent with not only the Second Amendment but also the consitutional guarantee of due process.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I want to excoriate as absolute nonsense, pernicious nonsense, what we just heard from Mr. Johnson, from Mrs. Lesko, and what I presume we will hear for the rest of the debate on this bill. Red flag laws are in effect in 19 States and the District of Columbia. Every court that has considered them has found them constitutional. Every court has said that they meet the requirements of procedural due process--every single court. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Republican speakers obviously have more regard for their politics and for the National Rifle Association than they do for the lives of our children. We see that every moment here, when they keep repeating the words that this is unconstitutional, when courts in 18 States and the District of Columbia have found them constitutional, and Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, on the 7th Circuit, said: History is consistent with common sense. It demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. So I don't think we should hear lectures on Democrats don't care about due process. We do. We also care about children's lives. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), chairman of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force.