Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2571.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2571, the Advancing Mutual Interests and Growing Our Success Act, or AMIGOS Act, would allow citizens of Portugal to participate in the E-1 and E-2 visa programs for traders and investors if Portugal provides reciprocal treatment to U.S. citizens. The E-1 Treaty Trader program provides temporary visas to individuals or employees of firms that engage in substantial trade with the United States. The E-2 Treaty Investor program provides visas to individuals so that they can develop and direct the operations of an enterprise in which they have invested a substantial amount of capital. The United States became Portugal's largest trading partner outside the European Union in 2015. Bilateral trade between our counties is growing at a rapid pace, from $4.2 billion in 2015 to $8.9 billion in 2019. Unlike most European Union countries, Portugal did not have a bilateral treaty with the United States before joining the European Union. Now, despite being one of our closest allies and closest economic partners, they are one of only five European Union countries whose citizens are not eligible for E-1 and E-2 visas. This is a bipartisan measure that we can all support. The bill simply would expand opportunities for Portuguese citizens to invest in the United States, facilitate trade, and create jobs for U.S. workers. The bill also strengthens the E visa programs by ensuring that individuals who obtain the nationality of a treaty country through an investment-based visa have sufficient ties to their new country of nationality before they can qualify for an E-1 or E-2 visa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) for championing this issue and working across the aisle to build consensus on this legislation. H.R. 2571 will improve our economy and strengthen our ties with an important and longstanding ally. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, today I am proud to have introduced the ``Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2021,'' or the ``MORE Act of 2021.'' This long overdue legislation would reverse the failed policy of criminalizing marijuana on the federal level and would take steps to address the heavy toll this policy has taken across the country, particularly on communities of color. The MORE Act would make three important changes to federal law: (1) remove marijuana, or cannabis, from the list of federally controlled substances; (2) authorize the provision of resources, funded by an excise tax on marijuana, to address the needs of communities that have been seriously impacted by the War on Drugs, including increasing the participation of communities of color in the burgeoning cannabis market; and (3) provide for the expungement of Federal marijuana convictions and arrests. For far too long, we have treated marijuana as a criminal justice problem instead of as a matter of personal choice and public health. Whatever one's views are on the use of marijuana for recreational or medicinal use, the policy of arrests, prosecution, and incarceration at the Federal level has proven unwise and unjust. This issue is not new to Congress. There have been many Members who have introduced bills upon which provisions in this bill are based. For instance, Representative Barbara Lee has sponsored bills that are the foundation of key provisions of the MORE Act, and I thank her for her longstanding leadership on this issue. Representative Earl Blumenauer has also been an indefatigable advocate and has supported everything we have done to get to where we are today. I thank him, as well as my other colleagues who have joined me as original cosponsors on the bill. Federal action on this issue would follow the growing recognition in the states that the status quo is unacceptable. Despite the federal government's continuing criminalization of marijuana, 36 states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical cannabis. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized cannabis for adult recreational use. I have long believed that the criminalization of marijuana has been a mistake, and the racially disparate enforcement of marijuana laws has only compounded this mistake, with serious consequences, particularly for communities of color. It was only in the early part of the 20th century that marijuana began to be criminalized in the United States--mainly because of misinformation and hysteria, based at least in part on racially-biased stereotypes connecting marijuana use and people of color, particularly African-Americans arid Latinos. In 1970, when President Nixon announced the War on Drugs and signed the Controlled Substances Act into law, the federal government placed marijuana on Schedule I, the most restrictive schedule that is attached to the most serious criminal penalties, where--unfairly and unjustifiably--it has remained ever since. As a consequence of this decision, thousands of individuals-- overwhelmingly people of color--have been subjected, by the federal government, to unjust prison sentences for marijuana offenses. It is time for this manifest injustice to end. The MORE Act would remove marijuana from Schedule I and the Controlled Substances Act altogether, thereby decriminalizing it at the Federal level. This is only fair, particularly because the same racial animus motivating the enactment of marijuana laws also led to racially disproportionate enforcement of such laws, which has had a substantial, negative impact on communities of color. In fact, nationwide, the communities that have been most harmed by marijuana enforcement are benefitting the least from the legal marijuana marketplace. The MORE Act would address some of these negative impacts, by establishing an Opportunity Trust Fund within the Department of Treasury to fund programs within the Department of Justice and the Small Business Administration to empower communities of color and those adversely impacted by the War on Drugs. These programs would provide services to individuals, including job training, reentry services and substance use disorder services; provide funds for loans to assist small businesses that are owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals; and provide resources for programs that minimize barriers to marijuana licensing and employment for individuals adversely impacted by the War on Drugs. The collateral consequences of a conviction for marijuana possession--and even sometimes for a mere arrest--can be devastating. For those saddled with a criminal conviction, it can be difficult or impossible to vote, to obtain educational loans, to get a job, to maintain a professional license, to secure housing, to receive government assistance, or even to adopt a child. These exclusions create an often-permanent second-class status for millions of Americans. This is unacceptable and counterproductive, especially given the disproportionate impact that enforcement of marijuana laws has had on communities of color. The MORE Act recognizes this injustice and addresses these harmful effects by expunging and sealing federal convictions and arrests for marijuana offenses. Indeed, the states have led the way--and continue to lead the way--on marijuana, but our federal laws have not kept pace with the obvious need for change. We need to catch up because the public supports reform and because it is the right thing to do. In my view, applying criminal penalties, with their attendant collateral consequences for marijuana offenses is unjust and harmful to our society. The MORE Act comprehensively addresses this injustice, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise to thank and honor Shadawn Reddick- Smith for her years of distinguished service to the House Judiciary Committee and to the United States Congress. Through her strategic insight and tireless dedication to advancing the Committee's priorities, Shadawn played a vital role in ensuring the work of the House Judiciary Committee was accessible and tangible to the American people. As we toiled together to reject then-President Trump's disgraceful efforts to undermine our democracy and erode key Judiciary priorities-- namely reforming our immigration system, preventing gun violence, and protecting access to the ballot box--I saw firsthand her passion and her skillful capacity to render our often-complex work understandable to the public. When Democrats took control of the House in January of 2019, the eyes of the country were fixed upon the Judiciary Committee I now chaired. I was deeply grateful that Shadawn stayed on my staff as my communications director as we entered this unprecedented time in American history. Before us lay problems existential in nature and scope: a lawless President intent on destroying democratic norms, an executive branch stubbornly fixed on stonewalling accountability, and a structure of government thrown into disarray by the Administration's ineptitude and cruelty. Despite the daunting task at hand, Shadawn's composure was unflagging and her capacity to maintain and nurture relations with members of the press--and the Democratic caucus--were invaluable. It would be easy to recognize Shadawn first and foremost for her work on the Judiciary Committee's oversight efforts, which included two presidential impeachments during her tenure. And, to be sure, Shadawn handled these incredibly demanding environments with poise, marshalling stakeholders, communicating effectively with the media, and shaping the public narrative to ensure our message of accountability under the law was heard loudly and clearly by the American people. But to focus only on these high-profile events would be to omit Shadawn's commitment to all the work of the Judiciary Committee. Shadawn sacrificed much of herself, without complaint, to provide access to the press and ensure the public understood what was transpiring in the Halls of Congress. She would regularly wake early, arriving at the Rayburn House Office Building often before the sun rose to ensure that television cameras and reporters were met with unlocked doors. She was also a kind presence to the junior staffers and interns who perform much of the unsung work of the Committee, offering guidance on how to communicate effectively and how to navigate a career on Capitol Hill. And Shadawn expanded and transformed the Judiciary Committee's digital program, ensuring that the work of the Committee could meet Americans where they are today: online and on social media. Her legacy is a Judiciary Committee with a social media reach unparalleled among other House Committees. In bringing the Judiciary Committee into the 21st century, Shadawn worked to ensure that the Committee was actively addressing issues that were top of mind to the American people. She was deeply passionate about overhauling America's broken, often brutal system of policing and helped shepherd the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act--bold legislation that reimagines policing in our communities--through the Judiciary Committee and the full House of Representatives. In doing so, Shadawn showcased her wide array of skills, demonstrating her ability to build consensus, deftly manage a surge of press requests, and craft a message that helped facilitate the bill's passage while rendering it visible to the public at large. Shadawn is moving on to tackle new challenges at the Department of Homeland Security, where she will serve as Director of Strategic Communications. She is one of a select few who stood tall and demonstrated exemplary grit during a most turbulent moment for our nation. I always felt proud to have her by my side. I wish Shadawn all the best in her future endeavors, and I thank her for her service to the Committee, to the Congress, and to the country.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 937.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 937) to facilitate the expedited review of COVID-19 hate crimes, and for other purposes.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Speaker, the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act is important and timely legislation to address the disturbing rise in violence directed at Asian Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among other things, this legislation would help DOJ expedite review of reported cases of hate crimes during the pandemic and provide guidance to State and local law enforcement agencies for collecting better and more accurate data. It also incorporates the Jabara-Heyer NO HATE Act, which includes measures to encourage the adoption and implementation of the National Incident-Based Reporting System to facilitate the reporting of hate crimes by local police departments to the FBI. The COVID-19 pandemic has taken almost 600,000 lives in the U.S. It has also, unfortunately, deepened existing divisions in our country. Racist, hateful rhetoric blaming the pandemic on Asian Americans fanned the flames of discord and resulted in a disgraceful, sickening, and ongoing spate of violence and discrimination against Asian people across our country. Stop AAPI Hate has collected reports of over 6,000 anti-Asian hate crimes and incidents since the pandemic began in March 2020. Just this month, they released four more heartbreaking attacks on Asian Americans in New York City alone. These cases are, unfortunately, part of a broader and deeply troubling uptick in hate crimes generally since 2015, with a surge in such crimes in 2019. This legislation addresses this disturbing trend by helping policymakers determine where critical resources should be focused, identifying trends that can be interrupted, and directing public education campaigns. I thank my good friends, Congresswoman Grace Meng and Senator Mazie Hirono, for championing this bill; Congressman Don Beyer and Senator Richard Blumenthal for their leadership on the Jabara-Heyer NO HATE Act; Chairman Steve Cohen, for holding an important hearing in his subcommittee on hate crimes and violence against Asian Americans; and Congresswoman Judy Chu, you, Madam Speaker, chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, for your tireless advocacy for the AAPI community. The Senate passed this bill almost unanimously. I urge my colleagues to do so as well. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline.)

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I wish the gentleman from New York a happy birthday. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), one of the sponsors of this legislation.

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, our country is experiencing a devastating rise in hate, particularly against Asian Americans, throughout this pandemic. The COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act responds to this urgent problem and will help our government position itself to act quickly on reports of hate crimes. It will ensure we have accurate data on the size and scope of the problem. With this information, the Department of Justice will be better positioned to act on reported hate crimes and to prevent future ones. Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation and to send it to the President's desk without delay, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Katko for cosponsoring this bill. For as long as women have been in the workforce, they have faced discrimination because of their sex, which is only amplified when a woman is pregnant. Pregnant workers are often passed over for promotions, forced out on leave, whether paid or unpaid, and sometimes even fired. As we have seen time and again, these policies disproportionately impact women of color and low-wage hourly workers. We all agree that pregnancy is not a disability, but sometimes pregnant workers need an easy fix, such as a stool or an extra bathroom break, to stay on the job. These accommodations are short in duration, and typically cost very little to provide, but they can mean the difference between keeping your job or putting your pregnancy at risk. Given the low cost of these accommodations, we must ask why so many employers are unwilling to provide them and keep their pregnant workers employed. The answer, unfortunately, is that for many employers, a pregnant employee embodies negative gender stereotypes regarding motherhood and pregnancy. Society still expects women to conform to stereotypical notions that to be a good parent, you must choose between pregnancy and work. This harmful stereotype puts working women in an impossible position of having to choose between their family's health and their financial well-being. While pregnancy may create some known physical limitations, this choice between work and pregnancy is a fallacy and can be remedied with a reasonable accommodation. Despite repeated attempts by Congress over the years to address this persistent gender discrimination, many employers still view pregnancy and work as incompatible. Current law continues to allow employers to simply force most pregnant workers out on leave rather than even considering providing an accommodation. The Americans with Disabilities Act does require employers to accommodate a pregnant worker if her work limitations rise to the disability impacting one or more major life functions. Women who have limitations that do not rise to this level are not protected under the ADA, which was not designed to address pregnancy-related gender discrimination. Furthermore, the courts have hamstrung other attempts by Congress to address pregnancy-related gender discrimination. Courts have interpreted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to only require employers to provide an accommodation if they also accommodate nonpregnant employees similar in their ability or inability to work and employed in similar working conditions. In order to prove discrimination, pregnant women must have perfect and complete employment and medical histories for every other employee in their workplace. It is obviously nearly impossible for employees to have that information, as evidenced by the fact that in over two-thirds of cases, courts have sided with employers who denied a pregnant worker accommodation. Current law lets women fall through the cracks in every sector of our economy, including the public sector. Take, for example, the story of Devyn Williams, a correctional officer trainee with the Alabama Department of Corrections. From the moment Ms. Williams told her employer she was pregnant, they started a campaign to fire her. When she presented a note from her doctor requesting to be excused from a monthly physical training session during her pregnancy, the State fired her. Her employer actually wrote an email stating that her doctor's note gave them grounds to dismiss Ms. Williams. Even with that email in her possession, Ms. Williams is still litigating her case 5 years later. No one should have to go to Federal court to get a simple accommodation to safely stay on the job while pregnant. The bipartisan Pregnant Workers Fairness Act before us today will close this gap in the law and create an affirmative right to accommodation for all pregnant workers. Using the familiar language of the ADA as a framework, the bill requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers as long as the accommodation does not impose an undue hardship on the employer. Courts know exactly how to interpret that language.