Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

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

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Mucarsel-Powell).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar).

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1017, I call up the bill (H.R. 7120) to hold law enforcement accountable for misconduct in court, improve transparency through data collection, and reform police training and policies, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just today, we heard the following: ``We are just going to go out and start slaughtering them.'' North Carolina cops fired after racist talk of killing Black residents. ``Wipe them off the F'ing map. That will put them back about four or five generations.'' That is why we say it is systemic racism. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass), chair of the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee and sponsor of this important legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that she may control the time on the majority side.

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. 7120.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the tragic and brutal death of George Floyd has been a wake-up call for millions of Americans. Across the Nation and around the world, the streets are lined with protesters demanding fundamental change in the culture of law enforcement and meaningful accountability for officers who commit misconduct. Today, we answer their call. We value and respect the many brave and honorable police officers who put their lives on the line every day to protect us and our communities. We know that most law enforcement officers do their jobs with dignity, selflessness, and honor, and they are deserving of our respect and gratitude for all they do to keep us safe. But we must also acknowledge that there are too many exceptions. Too many law enforcement officers do not uphold the ethic of protecting and serving their community. Instead, the reality for too many Americans-- especially for too many African Americans--is that police officers are perceived as a threat to their liberties, to their dignity, and, all too often, to their safety. To those who do not believe it, look at these tragic statistics. African Americans are more than twice as likely to be shot and killed by police each year, and Black men between the ages of 15 and 34 are approximately 10 times more likely to be killed by police than other Americans. This is not a new problem. Our country's history of racism and racially motivated violence is rooted in the original sin of slavery, lynchings, and Jim Crow, and systemic racism continues to haunt our Nation. We see it in the rates of COVID deaths, in our system of mass incarceration, and in the vast chasm of economic inequality, all of which fall disproportionately on the backs of African Americans. We see it in the harassment and excessive force that people of color routinely face by far too many of our police officers. An unmistakable message has been sent to African Americans in this country that they are second class citizens and that their lives are somehow of less value. Well, let me state clearly and unequivocally that Black lives matter. George Floyd mattered. Breonna Taylor mattered. Eric Garner mattered. Amadou Diallo mattered. Tamir Rice mattered. Walter Scott mattered. Laquan McDonald and so many others mattered. Rayshard Brooks mattered, and the countless other people who have lost their lives at the hands of law enforcement mattered. For far too long, pleas for justice and reform have fallen on deaf ears in Congress. But that changes today. The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act would finally allow for meaningful accountability in cases of police misconduct, and it would begin the process of reimagining policing in the 21st century. This legislation makes it easier for the Federal Government to successfully prosecute police misconduct cases. It effectively bans chokeholds, ends racial and religious profiling, encourages prosecutions independent from local police, and eliminates the dubious court-made doctrine of qualified immunity in civil rights lawsuits against law enforcement officers. At the same time, it works to prevent police violence and bias through a series of front-end approaches aimed at encouraging departments to meet a gold standard in training, hiring, de-escalation strategies, bystander duty, use of body cameras, and other best practices. The bill also ends no-knock warrants in drug cases, stops the militarization of local policing, and requires the collection of data on a number of key policing matters which would be made public, including the first ever national database on police misconduct incidents to prevent the movement of dangerous officers from department to department. It also creates a new grant program for community-based organizations to create local commissions and task forces on policing innovation to reimagine how public safety could work in a truly equitable and just way in each community. I want to thank the sponsor of this legislation, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass), for her tremendous work in crafting a bill that is at once bold and transformative, while also taking a responsible and balanced approach to the many complicated issues associated with policing. I also want to thank the activists across the country who are leading the protests. It is because of you that we are here today considering the most significant reforms to policing in a generation. It is because of your energy, your determination, and your demands for justice that the Nation has awakened to the need for action. I know that everyone in this Chamber mourns those who have lost their lives at the hands of law enforcement. But today is our opportunity to offer more than just sympathy. Today is our opportunity to show the world that we are listening and that we will respond with real and lasting reforms. Thoughts and prayers are not enough. Pledges to study the problem are not enough. Half measures are not enough. Pretend sham measures are not enough. We must not let this moment slip away. If we do, it will be a terrible stain on our legacy. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this vital legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, June 18. 2020. Hon. Adam Smith, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Smith: I am writing to you concerning section 365 of H.R. 7120, the ``Justice in Policing Act of 2020.'' I appreciate your willingness to work cooperatively on this legislation. I recognize that section 365 of the bill contains provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services. I acknowledge that your Committee will not formally consider H.R. 7120 and agree that the inaction of your Committee with respect to the bill does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the matters contained in H.R. 7120 which fall within your Committee's Rule X jurisdiction. I will ensure that our exchange of letters is included in the Congressional Record during floor consideration of the bill. I appreciate your cooperation regarding this legislation and look forward to continuing to work with you as this measure moves through the legislative process. Sincerely. Jerrold Nadler, Chairman.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. You have heard a lot of errant nonsense on the floor. But it must not go unrebutted. Ms. Bass, the chairperson of the Black Caucus and the chairperson of our subcommittee talked personally to the Republican leader, Mr. McCarthy, and got nowhere. The Committee on the Judiciary's staff talked to the Republican staff of the Committee on the Judiciary and got nowhere. The Republican amendments that Mr. Jordan advanced at the markup, his wonderful amendments, included antifa, the Seattle autonomous zone, stripping out the entire underlying legislation, defunding police departments, and adding a death penalty to antilynching legislation passed by the House. Of course, we wouldn't accept these amendments. They couldn't utter the phrase ``Black Lives Matter,'' and could barely engage the subject of police reform. Instead, their amendments--and I have given you about half of them just listed here--were errant nonsense, off-topic, dealing with imaginary things like antifa, and completely negating the entire purpose of the bill. They weren't interested in ``Black Lives Matter.'' They weren't interested in police reform. They were interested in pure demagoguery. Of course, we would not accept their amendments. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Louisiana an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, what do we hear from our Republican friends? ``Marxism,'' ``antifa;'' anything but dealing with the problem. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the assertion that we have not been willing to work with the Republicans on this important legislation. Allow me to set the record straight in detail on where we are and how we got here. We introduced a comprehensive policing reform bill 18 days ago. We explained to our colleagues in the minority that we initiated the process by developing comprehensive legislation with Senators Booker and Harris as well as with members of our caucus. We also explained the importance of moving quickly given the moment we were in as a Nation. Since that time, we have indicated to the minority that if they are interested in developing legislation that they could support, we needed to understand how they wanted to change the bill and whether those changes would lead them to support the bill. Chair Bass has reached out to the minority leader and to Senator Scott, and we have reached out to the minority over the course of the last 10 days. We held a hearing 2 weeks ago in which the minority invited three witnesses. The minority did not share a single amendment with us before last week's markup. The minority refused our offer to review and work with them on specific amendments they offered, that we indicated we could support if we had the opportunity to review and discuss before we go to the floor. That is their right, of course, but in my experience, when a Member would like the majority to support their amendments, they would ordinarily share the text with us in advance. That did not happen here. I would also note that some of what we saw is in the bill now, and we have not received a single outreach regarding this important matter from either the Trump White House or the Trump Department of Justice. Again, in my experience, if there were a serious and good-faith effort to enact legislation, the White House would seek to work with both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol. That has not happened thus far. Chair Bass and I and the others on our side of the aisle have remained open to a full and frank discussion with the minority about their possible support of real and meaningful policing reform legislation. That has not happened thus far. But it is my hope that the Senate will take up meaningful legislation--the legislation that Senator Scott has offered was hardly meaningful--but I hope they will take up meaningful legislation and I hope that we can work with them to pass meaningful legislation. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

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

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

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 7036) to amend the Anitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 to repeal the sunset provision, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII, and by direction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I offer a motion on the bill (H.R. 6172) to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to prohibit the production of certain business records, and for other purposes.