Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise--along with Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, and David Cicilline, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law--to thank Danielle Brown for her service to the Judiciary Committee. She is leaving the Judiciary Committee to serve as General Counsel and Parliamentarian of the Committee on Ways and Means. As we will outline shortly, our loss is their gain. Danielle has served in a remarkable range of positions over the course of her career on the Judiciary Committee. Growing up in Huntington Woods, Michigan, she first joined the Committee in November 2001 after graduating from the University of Michigan and working in the personal office of Rep. John Conyers, Jr. She left in May 2006 to obtain her law degree at Georgetown University, and returned to the Committee in 2008 after law school to serve as Counsel. She went on to serve as a Parliamentarian for the Minority, and later added the title of Chief Legislative Counsel and, eventually Deputy Chief Counsel, overseeing the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security and the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law, as well as our clerk and whip teams. We do not know of any other individual who has served in more positions within the Judiciary Committee. During her time on the Committee, Danielle has been a passionate advocate for justice. From her work on reproductive choice, refugees, and sex-trafficking to immigration reform, competition policy and arbitration, Danielle has been on the front lines of the Committee's search to promote and improve justice, equal rights, and the lives of ordinary and under-privileged people. Her analysis and advice have been indispensable whether the Committee engaged in oversight or considered legislation. Although Danielle was deeply involved in almost every single piece of Committee business over her years here, there are several areas in which she showed particular passion and enthusiasm. In her position overseeing the Immigration Subcommittee, she was a dogged defender of immigrants' rights. From comprehensive immigration reform to protecting Dreamers and those with Temporary Protected Status to reform of the EB- 5 program for immigrant investors, Danielle tirelessly fought to strike the right balance between opposing sides. Her counsel helped the Committee shed light on harmful administrative policies and prevent anti-immigrant bills from becoming law. She provided similarly excellent counsel in her oversight of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law. There, she earned a well-deserved reputation as a staunch defender of the public interest, open and fair markets, access to justice, and the rule of law. Beyond these specific responsibilities, Danielle has been intimately involved in many aspects of the Committee's operation. This has included helping the Committee organize each Congress, assisting Members and staff develop amendments for markups, reviewing Member memos for hearings and markups, drafting memos for the Ranking Member, helping to prepare Democratic dissenting views, assisting in the preparation of amendments and statements for the Rules Committee, preparing previous questions and motions to recommit, and drafting and reviewing statements for legislation and amendments on the floor. She also served as a liaison to Leadership, Majority staff, outside advocacy and non-profit groups, and the Administration. She also offered considerable instruction and creativity to fellow staff, and was a calming influence when supervising difficult or contentious matters. Danielle also was able to work across the aisle on a variety of bills. Her hard work and dedication earned her respect and admiration of Members and staff alike. We have appreciated and benefited from Danielle's energy, enthusiasm, and insight over her time on the Committee. We wish Danielle Brown the very best in her future endeavors and thank her for her outstanding service to the Congress, the Judiciary Committee, and our country.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7164, a bill to add Ireland to the E-3 nonimmigrant visa program. In 2005, soon after the United States and Australia finalized the Australia-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, Congress created the E-3 program for Australian nationals. That program provides up to 10,500 temporary visas, similar to H-1B visas, for Australians seeking to work in the United States in what are known as specialty occupations. As with the H-1B program, specialty occupations are those that require ``theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge'' in fields such as science, engineering, and computer programming. Australia has never used more than a fraction of the 10,500 E-3 visas that are made available each year in the program. In light of this fact, this bill would add Ireland to the program, thus allowing Irish nationals to use some of those remaining, unused visas. As amended, the bill would take the number of E-3 visas left unused by Australia in a given fiscal year and make that same number available to Irish nationals the following fiscal year. This is a commonsense bill that recognizes the important bond we share with two of our country's closest and most steadfast allies. I congratulate my friends, Mr. Sensenbrenner, former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Mr. Neal, ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee--soon to be chairman of the Ways and Means Committee--for championing this bill. They both deserve credit for working across the aisle on this issue. I would be remiss, however, if I did not also point out the continuing need to reform our immigration system in a more comprehensive and fundamental manner. Small fixes such as this bill are fine, but this body also must find ways to come together to enact broader, more meaningful reforms of our immigration system for the good of the American people. With that, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time. I again urge every Member on both sides of the aisle to vote for this bill. I applaud the bipartisan nature of it. I applaud Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Neal and Mr. Chabot for their roles in it, and this is a useful thing to do. I urge passage of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. We have been calling on the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to bring this important legislation before the committee for a vote, but he has refused to act. Democrats have taken the unusual step of invoking House rule XI, clause 2(c)(2) to force a markup. But other Republicans on the committee have sat on their hands and refused to join in this demand. But for three Republicans, the Judiciary Committee would be forced to consider this legislation. We cannot wait any longer. The stakes are too great. That is why I offer this proposal.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I stand here because, earlier this week, we were confronted with the threat of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's firing. On Monday, Mr. Rosenstein was summoned to the White House, with rumors swirling that he had resigned or was about to be fired. Today, he was scheduled to meet with the President. But yesterday, the President said he may not fire him. He prefers not to, but he may. And he may meet with Mr. Rosenstein or not. Mr. Rosenstein is directly responsible for Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into alleged links between the Russian Government and the Trump campaign, as well as other related work, now in the Southern District of New York in the National Security Division of the Department of Justice, that could have a profound effect on the integrity of elections to come. The fear is that, if the President fires Mr. Rosenstein, a new Acting Attorney General will take steps to end the investigation by Mr. Mueller in order to protect President Trump and his associates. It is unacceptable for a law enforcement project of this magnitude to turn on the employment status of one official. As we have all seen, President Trump has spent his Presidency undermining every effort to understand what happened during the 2016 elections. He has shown no interest in safeguarding the 2018 elections from ongoing attacks by foreign adversaries. Instead, he attacks the intelligence community; attacks the Department of Justice; attacks career civil servants; and attacks Special Counsel Mueller, complaining about what he calls a ``total witch hunt'' and calling for the Attorney General to end the investigation. This is not a witch hunt. In a relatively short period of time, investigators have secured multiple convictions and guilty pleas from key Trump campaign personnel, including the President's campaign manager, his deputy campaign manager, his national security adviser, and others. But President Trump and his allies in this Chamber are engaged in a broader strategy to undermine the legitimacy of any finding, guilty plea, or any conviction that may come out of the investigation. President Trump will take any opportunity to reign in, suppress, or end the Special Counsel's investigation. We know this because President Trump has told us so. He told us that he fired the FBI Director because of the ``Russia thing.'' He is reported to have ordered the firing of Robert Mueller at least twice. He attacks his own Attorney General for quite properly recusing himself from the investigation. His surrogates compare the FBI to the Gestapo, and call for the police to raid the Justice Department. Fortunately, as a coequal branch of government, we have a way to protect our law enforcement officers from these threats and to protect the country from this barrage of misinformation from the White House. H.R. 5476, the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act, would protect the Special Counsel from being unjustly fired and would allow for the courts to review any political interference. This is bipartisan legislation that has 126 cosponsors and is identical to Republican legislation that has a number of Republican cosponsors. The Senate counterpart to H.R. 5476 was introduced by Senators Graham, Booker, Coons, and Tillis, and passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 26, 2018, by a vote of 14-7.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), a member of the committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to be abundantly clear that this resolution is nothing more than a political stunt steeped in hypocrisy. The resolution states that it is ``of paramount importance that the United States maintains the legitimacy of its elections and protects them from interference, including interference from foreign threats. . . .'' Yet, the resolution does not even mention the greatest foreign threat we face: Russian interference intended to disrupt our elections and sow chaos in our political system. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and others have worked all year to undermine and discredit the Mueller investigation into Russian interference with our 2016 election. To add insult to injury, House Republicans have voted to block needed funding to help States secure their election systems from the ongoing Russian and other efforts to interfere in the 2018 elections, ongoing efforts that have been confirmed by senior administration officials. In short, this resolution ignores the real threats our elections are facing and, instead, plays political games by trying to stoke the worse kinds of sentiments in the body politic, all focused on local practices that are not sudden and not new but are as old as the Republic and suddenly pose a threat. I cannot vote for this charade. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H. Res. 1071 because it is nothing more than a bald-faced political stunt concocted by the majority in an attempt to stir up its political base ahead of the midterm elections. It also represents just the latest in a long and cynical line of attempts by the majority to denigrate and delegitimize our Nation's immigrant population and to erode public trust in our electoral system, all to bolster short-term political gains. Let me start out by saying that I can't imagine someone in a foreign country deciding to emigrate to the United States in order to vote in a school board election. That is just absurd. But the resolution also falls short on its own merits. For example, the resolution states that it is ``of paramount importance that the United States maintains the legitimacy of its elections and protects them from interference, including interference from foreign threats.'' I agree with the statement as far as it goes, but I question why the resolution makes no mention whatsoever of the greatest foreign threat of electoral interference, namely interference by Russia in an attempt to disrupt our democracy and sow chaos in our political an governmental system. It is the consensus view of our Nation's intelligence community that Russia interfered in the 2016 Presidential election in order to help Donald Trump become President. Indeed, senior administration officials warned just last month that Russia's attempts to interfere in our electoral system are ongoing and threaten the integrity of both the upcoming midyear elections and the 2020 Presidential election. At a minimum, the resolution should call attention to this fact. Yet, incredibly, the resolution makes absolutely no mention of it. The resolution also disrespects States' rights, failing to mention that the Constitution allows States and localities to permit noncitizen voting in local elections, a practice that dates to the earliest days of the Republic. For example, New York City permitted noncitizen voting in local school board elections until elections in local school boards were done away with in New York City about 20 years ago. Indeed, an earlier version of the resolution's text, obtained by the far-right Breitbart website, included the whereas clause acknowledging these facts stating: ``Whereas, the Constitution allows States and localities to grant noncitizens the right to vote in non-Federal elections.'' Yet perhaps recognizing that this was something of an admission against interest, the introduced version does not include this clause. The fact of the matter is that local governments have permitted noncitizen voting in various local elections, school board elections, and so forth, through the entire history of the Republic. So why suddenly do we have this expression of terrible concern? The resolution also speaks to the fact that ``voting is fundamental to a functioning democracy.'' Yet, it fails to address any of the real threats to voting rights that our citizens face. Five years ago, the Supreme Court effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act's preclearance requirement, the act's most important enforcement mechanism, in its decision in Shelby County v. Holder. The Court reached its conclusion notwithstanding Congress' factual findings in 2006 that the act, including its preclearance provision, was still needed in the face of continuing discrimination by some States against minority voters. In response to the Court's decision, and under Republican control, States that had been subject to the act's preclearance requirement wasted no time in pursuing voting restrictions that once again threatened to undermine the voting rights of African Americans and other racial and ethnic minority groups. These measures included voter identification requirements, restriction or elimination of early voting or same day registration, and bans on ex-offenders from voting, all of which makes it disproportionately harder for racial and ethnic minorities to vote. These restrictions, enacted by Republican legislatures, have probably deprived hundreds of thousands--or even several million--of our fellow citizens of the right to vote. They are the real threat to our democracy, not the few noncitizens who may vote in a school board election in some local government that has permitted it through the last 100 years. Members have introduced various proposals to address these continuing attempts by certain States and localities to suppress voters. For example, H.R. 12, the Voter Empowerment Act, which was introduced by Representative John Lewis and has 183 cosponsors, would reinforce the constitutional right to vote. The bill includes, among other things, provisions to make it easier to register to vote and to prohibit and criminally punish voter suppression tactics like caging, voter intimidation, and the provision of false and deceptive voting information. The bill would also restore voting rights for nonviolent felons after they have served their sentences. H.R. 2978, the Voting Rights Advancement Act, which was introduced by Representative Terry Sewell and has 192 cosponsors, is a direct response to the Supreme Court's invitation to Congress articulated in the Shelby County decision to revise section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. The bill would amend the Voting Rights Act to protect voters by requiring States with a recent history of voter discrimination to seek approval from the Department of Justice before making any changes to their electoral laws. Finally, H.R. 5011, the Election Security Act, which was introduced by Representative Bennie Thompson and has 122 cosponsors, would designate election infrastructure as critical infrastructure and provide financial support and enhanced security for the infrastructure to carry out elections so we are not subject to foreign invasion by hackers. These measures each address critical threats to our electoral system and the right to vote, yet none of them has received a hearing or other consideration by the House. It is a travesty that the Republicans have chosen to spend what is likely to be the last week of session before the midterm elections to consider this purely symbolic measure. They refuse to consider bills that would actually help ensure the right to vote but will consider this purely symbolic measure, one that in itself seeks to stoke the worst kinds of sentiments in the body politic, instead of devoting time to considering and passing meaningful and substantive protections for the right to vote and to protect us from foreign interference in our electoral system. I cannot support this travesty. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise, along with Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren, to thank Maunica Sthanki for her service to the Judiciary Committee. Maunica has served as a counsel for the Committee since 2014. During this time, she has been a passionate and dogged advocate for women and children seeking asylum, for refugees from Syria, Africa, and other war-torn regions--indeed for all immigrants who come to America seeking a better life for themselves and their children. For Maunica, immigration and protection of the most vulnerable is personal. While her family's story in many respects began in Uganda in the 1970s, it is an American story. In 1972, Ugandan military strongman Idi Amin issued an order expelling Asians living in the country. Her father, one of approximately 60,000 persons of Indian descent in Uganda at the time was left stateless. Her mother, who had a U.K. passport, was able to move to England. But thanks to America's generosity and a Jewish charity, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, her mother and father were able together to resettle in the United States. Like so many immigrants before them and immigrants who would come in the decades that followed, Maunica's parents came without much more than the clothes on their backs and settled in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where Maunica would be born. Maunica attended Baton Rouge Magnet High School, one of the Southeast's most competitive public schools, Louisiana State University, and the University of Texas School of Law. She began her career in law representing migrants and children along the border, and became a professor of clinical law at the University of the District of Columbia, imparting to others her passion for the rule of law. Maunica began her work for the Committee in 2014 just as we were experiencing an unprecedented increase in the number of unaccompanied children arriving at our Southern border. Within days she was responsible for organizing a congressional delegation to visit with parents in detention, children and adults in crowded Border Patrol stations, and attorneys on the ground. Maunica's advocacy skills and unbending sense of justice during that summer steeled her for fights to come. She became an advocate for ending family detention and a defender of laws that ensure that children have the opportunity to apply for asylum in the United States. That these laws remain on the books is a great tribute to Maunica's commitment. After the Paris bombings of November 13, 2015, Maunica knew immediately that the U.S. refugee program--an ocean away and with an extensive vetting process-would be subject to the same xenophobic attacks that followed 9/11 and were the very reason she became an immigration lawyer. She, again, fought to preserve asylum and refugee protections--laws that set the standard around the world and provide a safe haven to the most vulnerable irrespective of their faith, ethnicity or nationality. In January 2016, when the first Executive Order banned travel to the United States for citizens of several Muslim-majority countries, she recognized it as what federal courts would later declare it to be--a Muslim ban so infected with racial and religious animus that it could not stand. Perhaps, again, it was personal. Maunica's husband, a man of Muslim faith, has dedicated his life's work to combating bigotry as a prosecutor with the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. Earlier this year, when the Trump Administration began separating children from their families, Maunica worked tirelessly to help draft the Keep Families Together Act, legislation to end family separation at the U.S. border. Her expertise made the legislation stronger, and her passion and commitment led 190 Members of Congress to cosponsor the legislation. Together, we mounted a campaign to stop the policy and reunite children with their families. Work that continues today. We thank her for her dedication and compassion to helping others. Maunica is a vegetarian because of her faith, and as her daughter would tell you because animals are our friends, and she is also a rabid LSU football fan. She is an irrepressible spirit who has made great sacrifices to serve the Committee. We wish Maunica Sthanki the very best in her future endeavors and thank her for her outstanding service to the Committee and our country.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6758, the SUCCESS Act. This bipartisan legislation would direct the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the Small Business Administration to study the underrepresentation of women, minorities, and veterans among patent holders. It would also require the agencies to recommend legislative solutions for increasing participation by these underrepresented groups in entrepreneurship activities, and increasing the number of them who apply for and obtain patents. The SUCCESS Act would provide an important first step toward narrowing the race and gender gap among patent holders. One study estimated that per capita GDP could grow 4.6 percent if more women and African Americans were included in the initial stages of the innovation process. It also found that exposure to innovation during childhood has an important impact on a person's desire to become an inventor. That makes it critical that young people have diverse role models in all fields of study. The bill was strengthened, in the Judiciary Committee, by the Gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Schneider, whose amendment added veterans to the list of underrepresented groups that will be studied. Promoting greater inclusion in the innovation ecosystem is good for our economy and good for underserved communities, and I am pleased to support the bill. The SUCCESS Act would also extend the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's fee setting authority for eight years. Since this authority was first granted to the PTO under the America Invents Act, seven years ago, it has helped put the agency on solid financial footing, and it has enabled the PTO to continue performing the important work of protecting Americans' intellectual property. I appreciate the leadership of Mr. Chabot and Mr. Johnson, the sponsors of this bill, and the other bipartisan cosponsors of this legislation. I want to particularly thank Ms. Velazquez, the Ranking Member of the Small Business Committee, for all that she has done to bring attention to the lack of diversity among patent holders, and to the important issues highlighted in this bill. I look forward to continuing to work with her, and the other bill sponsors to advance not only this legislation, but also other measures to address the underrepresentation of women, minorities, and veterans within the innovation ecosystem. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, 17 years ago, two planes crashed into the World Trade Center in my district, killing thousands of people. A third plane slammed into the Pentagon, and a fourth plane, likely destined for the very Capitol complex in which we now stand, was brought down by a group of courageous passengers in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. As I do today, I represented Ground Zero on September 11, 2001. I was at the World Trade Center 4 hours after the towers fell. The scene was horrible: fire, smoke, debris, human remains, and twisted metal created an apocalyptic scene. Dust and debris filled the air, but even in that moment of deep despair and overwhelming horror, I saw signs of hope. Firefighters, police, and emergency medical technicians traveled to Lower Manhattan from around the country. Steel workers, construction workers, and hundreds of other men and women rushed to the pile to help. As the last fires were extinguished, 99 days after the attack, and the last pieces of metal were removed from Ground Zero, those feelings of hope, perseverance, and solidarity remained. In the years since the attacks, I have been grateful and inspired by how Congress has come together to help rebuild New York, and I have worked with my colleagues to support the responders, survivors, and families of the victims. In 2010, Congress passed, and in 2015 reauthorized, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. More than 88,000 9/11 responders and survivors have enrolled in the program to receive healthcare and support for 9/11-related illnesses. The law has also provided over $4.3 billion in compensation to responders and survivors through the Victim Compensation Fund, a program that Congress will have to reauthorize in the coming years. In addition to making our responders and survivors whole, Congress invested millions of dollars to help rebuild Lower Manhattan. One World Trade Center now fills the hole left in our skyline when the towers fell, and businesses shattered after the attack are reopened and thriving. In what was once the shadow of the towers, there now stands a comprehensive museum dedicated to sharing stories of September 11th and the bravery of those who risked everything to protect their fellow Americans that day. In place of the smoking hole I saw day after day in Lower Manhattan, there now sits a somber and inspiring memorial. It is a site of remembrance and hope; a place for every American to come and reflect on what happened that September morning, and to renew our promise, never to forget the events of that day. It is the national memorial for a national tragedy. Similarly, memorials built at the Pentagon and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, provide places to remember and reflect, solemn reminders of the tragedy and bravery we saw on September 11th. That is why I am pleased to cosponsor legislation introduced by my colleague from New Jersey which will create a competitive grant program to provide Federal support for security operations and maintenance for 9/11 memorials. This legislation will help ensure the memorials continue to provide sacred and inspiring spots, accessible to millions of visitors for generations to come. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the bipartisan support of the members of the Natural Resources Committee and the House leadership for bringing the bill to the floor today. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and to achieve our shared goal of providing a memorial that allows our Nation to mourn, to reflect, and to renew our promises never to forget September 11th.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I must oppose the so-called Community Safety and Security Act. This highly flawed bill is an example of why regular order and a meaningful, deliberative process is essential to the proper crafting of legislation. Last April, the Supreme Court, in Sessions v. Dimaya, ruled that a portion of the criminal code's definition of criminal violence is unconstitutionally vague. That was nearly 6 months ago. The Judiciary Committee has had ample time to examine the decision, to hold hearings, to gather input from a range of stakeholders, and to carefully develop legislation through markup and regular order--but none of those things have happened. Instead, a bill with significant ramifications for criminal law in immigration cases was introduced just last week while Members were out of town and is being rushed to the floor today without any hearings, without any markup, without any adequate opportunity for review by the public, by legal experts, or by stakeholders. So it is not a surprise that we are left with many unanswered questions and concerns about the impact of the bill. The term ``crime of violence'' is referred to throughout the criminal code and is, for example, used to determine whether a juvenile may be prosecuted as an adult in Federal court. It also has serious implications in immigration law because a noncitizen convicted of an aggravated felony, described under the Immigration and Nationality Act to include a crime of violence under this section, is deportable and would be denied the opportunity for certain discretionary relief from removal. If we do not define this term properly, it could have significant adverse consequences. H.R. 6691 specifies a long list of offenses that would be considered crimes of violence, some of which are not currently included in the Federal criminal code. The bill further defines some of the offenses that are in the code, adding layers of confusion to the bill. We need proper definitions. For example, the crime of fleeing is identified as a crime of violence. Now, if by fleeing you mean that, when the cop pulls you over, you hit the gas and flee at 100 miles per hour, endangering anybody on the road, that is a crime of violence. But if by fleeing it is meant that you don't pull over immediately because you are looking for a safe place to stop, well, that probably shouldn't be a crime of violence, and yet, in this bill, it seems to be. We should carefully examine all of these offenses to determine which are appropriate to be included in this definition, and we should consider what the consequences will be for each one. In writing for the majority in Dimaya, Justice Kagan noted that: A host of issues respecting the definition of ``crime of violence'' application to specific crimes divide the Federal appellate courts. Although Congress has the power to clarify the definition or to establish a new one, as this bill would do, it is absolutely essential that we consider carefully what offenses should be included. Indeed, in considering a change to the definition of ``crime of violence'' for the purposes of the sentencing guidelines, the United States Sentencing Commission held a hearing and received testimony. It also sought public comments in response to proposed revisions. At a minimum, we should do the same. Finally, I note that, even in the brief time since the bill has been introduced, a week, a broad array of advocates have expressed opposition to this bill, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Families Against Mandatory Minimums.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the additional time. Others opposing the bill are Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the Immigrant Justice Network, the Immigrant Defense Project, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and others. Such opposition should, at the very least, tell us that we should not be considering this legislation without thoughtful deliberation. This bill is a perfect example of a bill whose topics should be covered, but we could do it properly instead of having a sloppily drafted bill that does things we don't know it does and doesn't do things we think it does. We must have a hearing. We should have testimony. We should carefully consider this bill, and then we should pass some version of it. For those reasons, I oppose passage of this version of this bill, and I ask that we take the time to examine this issue through regular order.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Democracy Restoration Act of 2018. This legislation will serve to clarify and, in some cases, expand the voting rights of people with felony convictions, the next logical step in restoring their full participation in civic life. The United States remains one of the world's strictest nations when it comes to denying the right to vote to citizens convicted of crimes. An estimated 6.1 million citizens are ineligible to vote in federal elections due to their status as ex-offenders. More than four and a half million of these disqualified voters are not in prison, but are on probation, parole, or have completed their sentence. Due to differences in state laws and rates of criminal punishment, states vary widely in the practice of disenfranchisement, demonstrating a critical federal interest for uniform standards. Clarification of the law on restoration of ex-offender voting rights is a critical next step in criminal justice reform. In 2007, President George W. Bush signed the Second Chance Act into law, signaling a bipartisan awareness of the importance of enacting policies that assist in the reintegration of ex-offenders into their communities. Recent public opinion research has also shown that a significant majority of Americans favor voting rights for people on probation or parole, who are currently supervised in their communities, as well as for individuals who have completed their sentences. This legislation both captures the bipartisan spirit of the Bush administration and is consistent with evolving public opinion on rehabilitation of ex- offenders. From a constitutional basis, the Democracy Restoration Act is a narrowly crafted effort to expand voting rights for people with felony convictions, while protecting state prerogatives to generally establish voting qualifications. The legislation would only apply to persons who are not in prison, and would only apply to federal elections. As such, our bill is fully consistent with constitutional requirements established by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions upholding federal voting rights laws. Since this legislation was first introduced in 2008, the Sentencing Project reports 27 states have amended felony disenfranchisement policies in an effort to reduce their restrictiveness and expand voter eligibility. These reforms have resulted in an estimated more than 800,000 citizens regaining their voting rights. Yet, despite these reforms, the overall rate of ex-offender disenfranchisement has not abated and continues to have a disproportionate impact on communities of color. Many of the state reforms still rely on lengthy waiting periods or clemency and several feature burdensome procedural hurdles that have proven difficult to navigate for persons seeking to restore their voting rights. As a result, approximately 50 percent of the entire disenfranchised population is clustered in 12 states, with Florida alone accounting for 48 percent of the post-sentence population. Proponents of ex-offender disenfranchisement have offered few justifications for continuing the practice. In fact, the strongest empirical research suggests that prohibitions on the right to vote undermine both our voting system and the fundamental rights of people with felony convictions. A series of studies make clear that civic engagement is pivotal in the transition from incarceration and discouraging repeat offenses. Disenfranchisement laws only serve to isolate and alienate ex-offenders, creating additional obstacles in their attempt to successfully put the past behind them by fully reintegrating into society. But that is only half the story. The current patchwork of state laws has created widespread confusion among election officials throughout the country and has served as the justification for flawed voter purges. For example, although people with misdemeanor convictions never lose the right to vote in Ohio, in 2008, 30 percent of election officials in the state responded incorrectly or expressed uncertainty about whether individuals with misdemeanor convictions could vote. A similar survey by the Nebraska ACLU in advance of the 2016 general election determined that about half of state election officials gave out the wrong information about former felons' voting rights. Given the general confusion by election officials on restoration of voting rights, many ex-offenders are hesitant to even attempt registration, depriving eligible voters of their rights. Only federal law can conclusively resolve the ambiguities in this area plaguing our voting system. For many years, voting restoration legislation has been supported by a broad coalition of groups interested in voting and civil rights, including the NAACP, ACLU, Human Rights Watch, the Brennan Center for Justice, and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, among many others. This coalition has expanded to include many law enforcement groups including the American Probation and Parole Association, the Association of Paroling Authorities International, and the National Black Police Association, among others, who recognize that allowing people to vote after release from prison helps rebuild ties to the community that motivate law-abiding behavior. The denial of voting rights by many states to ex-offenders represents a vestige from a time when suffrage was denied to whole classes of our population based on race, gender, religion, national origin and property. I believe that our nation fails not only people with felony convictions by denying them the right to vote, but the rest of our society that has struggled throughout its history to ensure that its citizenry be part of legitimate and inclusive elections. It is long overdue that these restrictions be relegated to unenlightened history.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the retirement of Ellen Wallach, a public servant whose faithful and diligent spirit has graced my district office throughout my tenure in Congress. Ellen Wallach has had a long, fruitful, and deeply impactful career in casework and constituent services, first for the office of Rep. Ted Weiss from 1977 to 1993, and then for my office from 1993 onwards. Her knowledge of casework issues is encyclopedic, and she has inspired generations of young caseworkers with the care she brings to her life- changing work. In many ways, Ellen has directly performed the most important duties of any congressional office: she meets with constituents who are facing what can be profoundly challenging circumstances, and she finds a way to help them. During her 42 years working for the House of Representatives, Ellen has steadfastly assisted New Yorkers facing a slew of issues, many of them unprecedented or legally convoluted, as they navigate the immigration system, attempt to gain access to basic healthcare and housing, or work to receive the veterans' and retirement benefits to which they are entitled. Ellen also assisted in the immediate and long-term aftermath of the devastating 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, which occurred in our congressional district; she has fought for the rights of survivors, first responders, and families to receive the resources and information they needed to recover and live life to the fullest. As if that were not enough, Ellen devotes much of her free time to supporting the local arts community, to the benefit of countless children and artists in New York City. Her career has been dedicated to the people of New York in the truest sense of the word, and on behalf of my constituency, my staff, and myself, I wish Ellen a restful, joyous transition into retirement. Ellen Wallach is a role model for those who want to dedicate their lives to benefitting others in real and lasting ways. I salute her, and I thank her for her service to the people of the United States, the State of New York and my Congressional District.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5954, the Anti-terrorism Clarification Act of 2018. This bipartisan bill, of which I am proud to be the lead Democratic sponsor, amends the Anti-Terrorism Act, or ATA, to make it easier for American victims of international terrorism to have their day in court, to obtain some measure of justice for their injuries, and to hold terrorists accountable for their heinous acts. The ATA provides that U.S. nationals, or their survivors or heirs, may recover treble damages and attorney's fees and costs for any civil action arising from an injury sustained by an act of international terrorism. H.R. 5954 seeks to minimize certain procedural obstacles that ATA plaintiffs have encountered in their attempts to obtain full relief for their injuries. For example, the ATA contains an exception for injuries caused by an ``act of war,'' which it defines, in relevant part, as including ``armed conflict between military forces of any origin.'' Unfortunately, this ambiguous statutory language has led to considerable confusion among Federal courts as to the proper scope of the act of war exception, and even as to the proper kind of analysis to apply when the armed conflict at issue involves a terrorist group such as Hamas or Hezbollah. For example, in one case, the court found that the act of war exception prevented U.S. civilians injured by Hezbollah rocket attacks into Israel from pursuing their claims under the ATA. Yet, in another case, a different court concluded that gunshots fired into Israel by Hamas that resulted in injury to a U.S. civilian did not constitute an act of war and, therefore, was compensable. H.R. 5954 resolves this confusion by specifying, among other things, that a foreign terrorist organization or a specially designated global terrorist, as designated by the executive branch, is not a ``military force'' and, therefore, is subject to ATA liability. This change makes it clear that violent actions targeted at U.S. civilians by a terrorist group are acts of terrorism that could give rise to liability under the ATA. Indeed, to read the act of war exception otherwise, as some courts have done, threatens to undermine the ATA's entire purpose. Even if victims successfully obtain a judgment under the ATA, many plaintiffs find it impossible to obtain full compensation for their injuries because there are not sufficient assets available to satisfy the judgment. This bill would address that problem as well. Under current law, terrorism victims can reach assets blocked pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to satisfy terrorism-related court judgments. This bill would simply allow terrorism victims also to attach assets that have been blocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act. The final hurdle to bringing ATA claims that this bill helps overcome is an overly narrow reading of personal jurisdiction that some courts have applied, which has prevented some victims from bringing those responsible for their injuries to justice. Most recently, this occurred in the Second Circuit's misguided decision in Sokolow v. PLO. In Sokolow, several plaintiffs, including Morris and Eva Waldman, two of my constituents, sought relief under the ATA for injuries sustained as a result of various terrorist attacks in Israel that killed or injured U.S. citizens. Although a district court awarded the plaintiffs $655 million in damages, the Second Circuit reversed, wrongly concluding, in my view, that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants in that case; namely, the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority. The court reasoned that the defendants' contacts, including maintaining offices in Washington and New York and the activities associated with those offices, were insufficient to support personal jurisdiction. This bill responds to the Second Circuit's decision by deeming a party to have consented to personal jurisdiction if the party accepts foreign assistance of any kind from the United States beginning 120 days after the bill's enactment date. In the case of the PLO, or affiliated entities, it would also deem consent if the defendant maintains an office in the U.S. jurisdiction 120 days or more after the enactment date. By undertaking one of these acts, a potential defendant is sufficiently on notice that it is consenting to personal jurisdiction in an ATA case. My support for H.R. 5954 is part of my longstanding efforts to secure a measure of justice for terrorism victims, including leading House efforts to reauthorize the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund. I was also the lead House Democratic sponsor of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which helped ensure that 9/11 victims and other victims of terrorism on American soil can bring their claims in court, regardless of where the foreign conduct occurred. This bill is a natural extension of those efforts. For these reasons, I support this important bipartisan measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I agree with the gentleman. I think the gentleman from Maryland makes a very valid point. Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, I oppose this bill. I would simply say: We agree there is a serious problem with abuse of eminent domain, and we agree there may very well be decent legislation that would do something about the problem. If you are going to do it, draft legislation that really deals with the problem, that is constitutional, that will protect the small person such as Mrs. Kelo but that won't bankrupt the community in a way that is probably unconstitutional anyway. This bill is not the solution. We could, on a bipartisan basis, work for an intelligent solution, but this is not it. Accordingly, I urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. That is exactly what it said.

Mr. NADLER. Yes. The Medicaid decision said you cannot draft the local government to exercise a function for the Federal Government, which this would seem to do also.