Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, as I stated at the outset of debate today, I will not oppose this bill, although it merely duplicates existing law. It does not add any protection for the police and does not increase any penalty for someone who assaults a police officer. I am not interested in falling into the trap of opposing what amounts to a messaging bill brought forth during Police Week. But I want to be clear that I believe H.R. 5698 represents a wasted opportunity and appears tone-deaf to some of the real struggles happening in communities across our Nation. This bill is being contemplated at a time when our country is in the throes of a national policing crisis, with a never-ending stream of police shootings of unarmed African Americans captured on video. Creating a new, yet superfluous crime for offenses committed against law enforcement is not a great idea because it doesn't do anything. It is particularly not a great idea when we are ignoring the other problem that adds to the danger for police officers, which is the disconnectedness and estrangement of many police forces from the communities they serve. I hope this Congress will now get back to the difficult work of legislating meaningful solutions. I am encouraged that my Republican colleagues have made a commitment to pursue balanced law enforcement accountability reform with hearings and, hopefully, the introduction of legislation. There is much work to be done. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from various civil rights and civil liberties groups relative to this bill. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, May 15, 2018. Re Coalition Opposition to H.R. 5698, the Protect and Serve Act of 2018. Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of the 28 undersigned civil rights, civil liberties, faith-based, and government accountability organizations, we write to urge you to oppose H.R. 5698, the Protect and Serve Act of 2018, which creates a new crime for offenses that target law enforcement officers. First, police already have substantial protections under federal and state law, rendering this bill superfluous. Second, this bill signals that there is a ``war on police,'' which is not only untrue, but an unhelpful and dangerous narrative to uplift. And finally, bills similar to Protect and Serve that have been introduced in states around the country--so called ``Blue Lives Matter'' bills--appear to be a political response to the growing national movement for police accountability in the face of continued killings and assaults of unarmed African Americans; therefore, this bill is divisive and will have a negative impact on the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve. i. Federal and state criminal laws already offer ample protection to police officers. Federal law already has extremely strong penalties for people who commit crimes against law enforcement officers and other public officials. For example, federal laws impose a life sentence or death penalty on persons convicted of first- degree murder of federal employees or officers, killing state and local law enforcement officers or other employees assisting with federal investigations and killing officers of the U.S. courts. All fifty states have laws that enhance penalties for people who commit offenses against law enforcement officers, including for homicide and assault. Moreover, there is no record that crimes against law enforcement go unprosecuted or are otherwise treated frivolously There is no record to suggest that prosecutors are unwilling or unable to charge individuals with crimes against law enforcement. In fact, crimes against police officers are treated as among the most heinous criminal acts, given the high degree of culpability and punishment attached to such crimes. II. The Protect and Serve Act does not advance any stated policy goals, because law enforcement is not subject to increasing or widespread attacks. There is no doubt that police work is a dangerous undertaking, but the reality is that there has been a continuing decline in the number of officers killed or assaulted in the line of duty over the last several decades. In the past ten years, the number of officers feloniously killed has fluctuated, yet not significantly increased or decreased, as have ambush-style killings of officers. Given these facts, this bill perpetuates a false narrative that police are under increasing attack by their communities. Such a message is unhelpful and unsupported. Furthermore, the Protect and Serve Act does nothing to meaningfully improve officer safety and wellness if that is an intended policy goal. For example, it does not call for support services, better training, improved safety measures, increased supervision, or any of the other multiple measures available to law enforcement that are widely accepted as promoting officer safety and wellbeing. III. Protect and Serve Act is polarizing and harms community-police relations. This bill is being contemplated at a time when our country is in the throes of a national policing crisis, with a never- ending stream of police shootings of unarmed African Americans captured on video. Creating a new, yet superfluous, crime for offenses committed against law enforcement is a particularly disconnected and non-responsive policy choice. Unfortunately, the Protect and Serve Act is similar to other ``Blue Lives Matter'' type bills that create new criminal offenses and penalty enhancements for crimes against police. Collectively, these policy efforts, which have sprung up amid the national call for police accountability, appear to be a political response to the powerful activism of grassroots movements that demand fair and constitutional policing. Rather than focusing on policies that address issues of police excessive force, biased policing, and other police practices that have failed these communities, the Protect and Serve Act's aim is to further criminalize. This bill will be received as yet another attack on these communities and threatens to exacerbate what is already a discriminatory system of mass incarceration in this country. Continuing to undermine police-community relations in this manner sows seeds of division, which ultimately threatens public safety and undermines the work of law enforcement. For the reasons summarized above, we urge you to vote against the Protect and Serve Act as it comes before the U.S. House of Representatives. There is no justification for creating a new crime for offenses committed against law enforcement. At a time when we need to foster healing between law enforcement and our communities, we should not be considering legislation which not only does nothing to advance the goal of officer safety, but will further erode the relationship between police and communities. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. If you have any questions, please contact Kanya Bennett of the ACLU; Sakira Cook of The Leadership Conference or Sonia Gill Hernandez of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Sincerely, American Civil Liberties Union; Anti-Defamation League; Campaign for Youth Justice; Church of Scientology National Affairs Office; CLASP; The Daniel Initiative; Defending Rights & Dissent; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Human Rights Watch; Government Information Watch; Law Enforcement Action Partnership; The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; Muslim Advocates; NAACP. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; National Action Network; National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; National Association of Social Workers; National Bar Association; National Center for Transgender Equality; Nation Council of Jewish Women; The National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls; National Council of Churches; People for the American Way; PolicyLink; South Asian Americans Leading Together; Southern Poverty Law Center; StoptheDrugWar.org.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Protect and Serve Act, while rooted in laudable goals, will not strengthen protections for law enforcement officers, and it fails to make meaningful reforms that would improve police- community relations. Although I will not oppose the bill, I believe that its consideration today reflects a wasted opportunity. This legislation would create a new offense under title 18 of the U.S. Code for the crime of targeting law enforcement officers. Current law, however, at both the Federal and State level already makes it a crime. It is not clear why this bill changes the law in any meaningful way. No Member of Congress questions the difficulty, danger, and stress associated with being a police officer. A white paper commissioned by the Ruderman Family Foundation reported that, last year, 129 peace officers died in the line of duty--46 from shootings--with an additional 140 reported officer suicides. Since the start of this year, 2018, at least 36 law enforcement officers across the United States have died while on duty, with 24 of the deaths caused by gunfire. Our hearts go out to the families of those officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty. As a result of the risk inherent to policing, there is no profession more widely protected under Federal and State law than working in law enforcement. All 50 States have laws that enhance penalties for crimes against peace officers and, in some instances, crimes against the broadly defined category of first responders. In fact, section 2 of the bill clearly acknowledges that States have primary jurisdictions for attacks on State and local police officers and lays out very narrow circumstances where a Federal nexus would exist. This presents an open question as to whether there would be any instances at all in which the Department of Justice would exercise jurisdiction under this legislation. I would note that my own State of New York has four separate criminal statutes addressing attacks on law enforcement officers. Moreover, Federal laws already impose a life sentence and, in some circumstances, even the death penalty on persons convicted of killing State and local law enforcement officers or other employees assisting with Federal investigations. Simply put, the legislation under consideration today does not improve upon this existing legal framework and does not provide any more stringent punishment for anyone under existing law. I want to be clear about the respect that we have for the difficult work undertaken by our law enforcement professionals. While attacks on law enforcement officials are completely unacceptable, the existing framework for prosecuting these crimes is more than adequate at both the Federal and State level. If it were not, I would be an ardent supporter of this legislation. Rather than advancing a bill that amounts to an empty gesture during Police Week, the Congress should instead be focusing on real reform measures that would actually protect law enforcement officers and first responders. We should act on the related problem of well-documented unconstitutional policing practices in communities of color across the United States that have eroded trust between those communities and the law enforcement officials sworn to protect them. The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department currently has 19 consent agreements with troubled police departments nationwide. Dating back to the mid-1990s, every region of the country has suffered some kind of high-profile incident. Adding to community concerns are the increasingly well-documented incidents of unjustified deadly force against unarmed victims in police-civilian encounters. More than 50 percent of the unarmed victims in these fatal encounters with police were people of color. The goal of protecting police officer safety would be well served by working to foster law enforcement reforms aimed at helping local jurisdictions meet their constitutional obligation of fair and unbiased policing and the resulting better trust between the communities and the police in their midst. As we have debated the Protect and Serve Act, I have been encouraged by the expressed commitment by Chairman Goodlatte and the bill's sponsor, Representative Rutherford, to work with me on bringing the Judiciary Committee's balanced work on law enforcement accountability out into the open with hearings and the introduction of legislation. We should care equally about harms by and against police officers and their impact on local communities. We should care about the harms on local communities because of that harm and also because of the fact that it undoubtedly leads to distrust, which in turn leads to greater violence against police officers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), the distinguished ranking member of the Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Subcommittee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the nonpartisan Open Markets Institute, in its opposition to H.R. 5645 states: ``Given the severity of the concentration problem in America today, and its economic and political consequences, Congress should be looking to enhance the powers of all of America's antimonopoly agencies.'' I strongly agree: Congress should be strengthening, not weakening, our competition system to protect economic opportunity, innovation, and choice. That is why I have joined several of my Democratic colleagues-- Representatives Joe Crowley, David Cicilline, and Keith Ellison--in introducing a package of bold economic measures to strengthen protections that will help ensure that hardworking Americans have more economic opportunity by ending anticompetitive employment practices. This package includes H.R. 5642, the Restoring and Improving Merger Enforcement Act, legislation that I introduced to prohibit the consideration of false economic efficiencies--like corporate layoffs, actually costing employment--to justify anticompetitive mergers. But rather than address these important measures, which would actually help American workers and consumers, or give the antitrust agencies the resources they need to really promote competition, this bill would do the opposite by undermining the FTC's ability to vigorously enforce antitrust laws under the guise of attempting to solve a problem that does not exist. I would submit that an economy in which we are down to four major airlines and two major railroads, and going in the same direction in almost every other segment of the economy, we should not be weakening our antitrust laws and our antitrust enforcement, we should be strengthening them. This bill goes in exactly the wrong direction and is guaranteed to further increase the concentration of economic power in our economy, and to further decrease the bargaining power that workers have to get decent wages and working conditions. Mr. Speaker, this is a deeply anti-employee bill, it is a pro- monopoly bill, and it is a very anti-economic growth bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose this deeply flawed measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment makes several technical revisions to clarify that the bill does not apply to consummated mergers and other transactions. While this change marginally addresses one concern with the bill, it does nothing to change the most fundamental flaw with the bill, which is that it eliminates the Federal Trade Commission's administrative litigation authority in merger cases. As we noted during consideration of this bill in the Judiciary Committee last year, and in prior Congresses, the SMARTER Act is overbroad as currently drafted and applies to both unconsummated and consummated transactions. According to John Jacobson, a leading antitrust attorney, who served as commissioner of the Antitrust Modernization Commission, this bill could easily be ``construed as prohibiting a challenge to the consummation of any merger in administrative proceedings, even a post- merger challenge, notwithstanding the term `proposed.' '' Technical feedback by senior staff at the FTC, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, confirmed this view. While the amendment makes the useful clarification that H.R. 5645 would not apply to already consummated transactions, the bill would still eliminate the FTC's ability to use administrative litigation in proposed mergers, striking at the core of the Commission's independence and congressionally mandated design, without any evidence that such a change is warranted or desirable. As Mr. Jacobson has also noted in his testimony in opposition to a similar version of this legislation considered by the Senate, eliminating the ``FTC's ability to conduct administrative proceedings in pre- consummation merger challenges is harmful to the sound administration of the antitrust laws.'' At a time when there is an increasing desire across the ideological spectrum to strengthen antitrust enforcement in the face of extreme concentrations of corporate power in industry after industry, the SMARTER Act proposes to go in the opposite direction. Congress was wise to establish an independent agency in 1914 to ensure strong antitrust enforcement, and we would be wise today not to undermine that choice. Mr. Speaker, this amendment essentially puts lipstick on a pig. It does not change my basic opposition to a bill that is fundamentally flawed in its conception. Therefore, I must oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, as a practical matter, the FTC only challenges a handful of proposed mergers, on average, per year. These transactions present some of the largest, most complex, and potentially most concerning issues. But in most of these cases, the parties either abandon the transaction or negotiate a settlement. Nonetheless, in those few instances where the FTC does challenge a transaction, it is in a position to answer novel questions of law and, thereby, develop expertise and guidance for future applications. Indeed, that is the whole point of having an FTC, and that is the whole point of administrative adjudication authority. As the Antitrust Institute has noted in its opposition to the SMARTER Act to this bill, ``the FTC's use of administrative powers should be carefully safeguarded, because it has contributed critically to the effective shaping of U.S. merger policy without detracting from the speed or effectiveness of merger review.'' In addition, Republican FTC Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen's 2016 study on administrative litigation debunks the claim of procedural bias against merging parties. Her study found that the FTC's appellate success and case work ``do not support a narrative that the Commission blindly supports ill-conceived cases because of systemic bias. To the contrary, they show a recent history of solid, well-supported enforcement actions.'' Even where the FTC does not use administrative adjudication, the potential use of this tool is invaluable in the agency's ability to successfully get emerging parties to agree to structural remedies, such as divestitures, to address concerns with a proposed merger. It is unthinkable to remove the FTC's administrative litigation authority, as this amendment would continue to do, when such authority is only used to protect against the most anticompetitive mergers that are certain to substantially lessen competition, harm consumers, raise prices, and hurt workers. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. 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 rise in opposition to H.R. 5645, the Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules Act. This bill would significantly undermine the Federal Trade Commission's ability to enforce the Nation's antitrust laws, which help protect Americans from anticompetitive behavior in the marketplace. In the guise of harmonization with the Department of Justice, it would eliminate the FTC's administrative litigation enforcement authority with respect to corporate mergers and other transactions. It would also change and potentially increase the burden the FTC must demonstrate in court when seeking a preliminary injunction against the proposed merger. In doing so, the bill would undercut a critical tool that the FTC relies on to promote competition. It also risks sacrificing the fundamental nature of the FTC as an independent administrative agency, rather than an executive department, subject to the political whims of the President. This blatant attack on the FTC's congressionally mandated independence contravenes more than a century of legislative intent. In 1914, Congress responded to a wave of mergers and corporate abuses by establishing the FTC as an independent body of experts tasked with developing and advancing competition policy free from political pressure. In doing so, Congress specifically gave the Commission broad enforcement and investigatory authorities, including the power to challenge anticompetitive mergers and other conduct through administrative litigation. This broad grant of statutory authority was not accidental. Louis Brandeis, a visionary architect of our Nation's competition system, advocated for the embrace of administrative litigation during Congress' consideration of the FTC Act, and President Woodrow Wilson said such authority was critical to the FTC's mission ``to warn where things were going wrong and assist instead of check.'' As former Republican FTC Chairman William Kovacic warned: ``Without a substantial, effective administrative litigation program, the aim of making the Commission an influential competition policy tribunal could not be accomplished.'' Nevertheless, this bill would eliminate this critical tool for promoting competition and, in the process, would erode the Commission's unique qualities and independence. To further undermine the Commission's independence, the bill would also require the FTC to meet the same standard in court that the Justice Department meets when seeking a preliminary injunction against the proposed merger. But the FTC and the DOJ are two different agencies with different missions and different traditions. Under current law, the Commission, by statute, must show that a preliminary injunction ``would be in the public interest.'' The Justice Department, on the other hand, has no statutory standard and must simply meet the common law preliminary injunction standard, such as the balance of equities and the risk of irreparable harm. As our Nation's leading antitrust enforcers have previously testified, there is no practical difference between the standards or evidence that the Commission has abused its authority. So it is entirely unclear what problem the bill is attempting to solve. But in making this change, this bill could cause unnecessary confusion for the courts or could signal a desire to increase the burden on the agency to demonstrate the harms of an anticompetitive merger. That result alone is unacceptable. But even more fundamentally, this legislation is a step in the wrong direction for our economy and for the prosperity and security of all Americans. The decline of antitrust enforcement over the past several decades has been an economic catastrophe for millions of workers who have lost their jobs or seen their wages lowered. It has resulted in fewer choices and higher prices for consumers, including increased costs for healthcare, prescription drugs, and other essential goods and services. The importance of robust antitrust enforcement is not simply a question of preventing higher prices for consumers. In the absence of competition, employers have the power to suppress the wages and mobility of American workers through anticompetitive contracting practices, such as noncompete clauses and no-poach agreements. And when large corporations run amok, locally owned businesses, the economic lifeblood of our communities, wither on the vine. Concentrated economic power is also a serious threat to our vibrant democracy. Large corporations with an outsized role in the policymaking process are able to further entrench their dominance through favorable rules and enforcement decisions. And when a large corporation with market power has the ability to control the flow of information, it also has the power to shape public opinion in ways that erode democratic values and undermine the voice of the many in favor of the outsized profits of the few. By further weakening our antitrust laws, H.R. 5645 would accelerate this disturbing trend. Accordingly, I must oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote against this very bad bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today, as Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I join with Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, in expressing our appreciation for Mauri Gray's work with the Committee over the past two years. Mauri came to us as a detailee from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, having worked for nearly six years as an Assistant Federal Public Defender in Puerto Rico , representing indigent clients in federal criminal cases. Prior to starting her career as a public defender, Mauri attended the University of Florida and the University of Georgia School of Law. At the conclusion of her detail to the Committee, she will be resuming her work, moving to the Federal Defender's office in Phoenix, Arizona. As counsel to the Committee's Democrats, Mauri provided indispensable analysis and advice concerning oversight hearings and a wide range of proposed legislation, including various child protection bills, legislation to .combat opioid abuse, proposals to fight online sex trafficking, legislation concerning arrest authority of federal law enforcement officers, and bills concerning federal benefits for those with criminal records. Often, her counsel helped Members defeat or improve bills intended to inappropriately expand the scope of federal criminal law or to impose unjust penalties. As the Committee has engaged in the beginnings of an initiative to reform our criminal justice system, Mauri's experience as a federal defender has informed our legislative efforts. She has helped us examine and prepare legislation to improve our sentencing laws as well as legislation to reform various aspects of federal prisons. We have appreciated and benefited from Mauri's energy, enthusiasm, and insight over the past two years, during which she became an integral part of our team. We will miss her. We thank Mauri for her selfless service to the Committee, and we wish her the best as she continues her career.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu).

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining, please?

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the distinguished Democratic Caucus chair and the lead sponsor of the AMP Act, which is included in this package.

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

Mr. NADLER. 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 rise in support of the Music Modernization Act. I am proud to partner with Chairman Goodlatte on this comprehensive bill intended to resolve some longstanding inequities and inefficiencies in the music marketplace. We have achieved consensus on this bill, which passed out of the Judiciary Committee by a remarkable vote of 32-0. The package includes the original Music Modernization Act, H.R. 4706, introduced by Mr. Collins and Mr. Jeffries, which significantly reforms the process for licensing mechanical reproduction royalties under section 115 of the Copyright Act. It also includes a number of provisions to ensure that songwriters and other music creators receive fair market value for their work. The package includes the CLASSICS Act, H.R. 3301, introduced by Chairman Issa and me, to resolve the dispute over payment to legacy artists for pre-1972 works played on digital radio platforms. For too long, many of our Nation's great cultural icons have been unfairly denied compensation. That is why this measure is supported by the NAACP and more than 300 major artists. The bill includes the AMP Act, H.R. 831, introduced by Mr. Crowley and Mr. Rooney, to simplify the payment of royalties to producers, mixers, and engineers, recognizing in Federal copyright their important contributions to the creation of music. Several of these measures were included in the Fair Play Fair Pay Act, H.R. 1836, a bipartisan bill I introduced with Representative Marsha Blackburn, Chairman Issa, and Mr. Deutch, to create a uniform system for sound recordings. They, along with Mr. Collins and Mr. Jeffries, deserve a tremendous amount of credit for getting us to this point. We are at a unique moment in time where virtually all the industry stakeholders have come together in support of a common music policy agenda. The bill is supported by a broad coalition that includes songwriters and artists, publishers and labels, and internet and digital media companies such as Pandora, Spotify, Google, and Amazon. I want to thank the members of my staff who worked for years to resolve some very complex and sensitive issues to move this legislation forward: Lisette Morton, Jason Everett, and David Greengrass. This is an historic opportunity to accomplish a great deal that hasn't been done in decades. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Music Modernization Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the Democratic lead sponsor of the original Music Modernization Act.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), one of the Democratic lead sponsors of this bill as well as of the Fair Play Fair Pay Act and the CLASSICS Act.