Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, today, young people across the country are taking a stand and calling upon this Congress to do something about the scourge of gun violence that has terrorized our schools and streets for too long. This bill fails to do so, and it should not and cannot be our only response to these demands. We must make schools safer. But the best way to do that is to do more to prevent gun violence from occurring in the first place. Congress must do more to stop gun violence. Congress should pass an assault weapons ban. Congress should pass an effective background check. Congress should ban high-capacity magazines. Congress should do a lot more. It is not enough to say that staff and students must do more to protect themselves. Mr. Speaker, it is time to take decisive action to stop gun violence in our communities. You are faced with a simple choice, Mr. Speaker: Will you stand with these young people who are demanding action or will you stand with the NRA and be complicit in the continuing violence in our schools and in our streets? Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4909, the STOP School Violence Act, as amended. But I do so with serious concerns about some of its provisions, and mostly about what the bill fails to do. H.R. 4909 would authorize $50 million annually for grants administered by the Department of Justice to fund various training and other initiatives intended to enhance school safety. It would authorize another $25 million annually to be used for other related purposes, including physical improvements, such as metal detectors, better locks, and systems for schools to notify law enforcement of emergencies. The bill is fine as far as it goes, and we should certainly do more to make our schools safer, but it is shameful that we must do so because of our failure to reduce the threat of gun violence to children. It should be unacceptable to all of us that we must take steps to train staff and students to protect themselves against these types of incidents instead of spending more money on actually educating our young people. This bill does not include any provisions to strengthen our gun laws or to help keep guns out of the hands of those who should not possess them. Evidence and experience tell us that we must establish universal background checks instead of the flawed system we now have. We should encourage States to adopt laws providing for extreme risk protection orders, and we must ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. These steps would help prevent not only school shootings, but would reduce the daily toll of gun violence in our communities. None of these critical provisions are included in this bill, which was never examined by the Judiciary Committee either through a hearing or a legislative markup session. Had we taken these steps, which we could have done quickly in the exactly 1 month since the tragic Parkland, Florida, shooting, we might have produced a much better bill for floor consideration. The suspension version of the bill does include an explicit prohibition against the funds being used on firearms or firearms training. Because President Trump and others in the administration have indicated that they believe arming teachers is part of the solution to this problem, it was important to my colleagues and to me that we be assured that this program, at least, will not be used for such a purpose which would actually endanger students, not make them safer. However, we should have addressed serious concerns that have come to our attention with respect to the anonymous tip reporting systems and threat assessment and intervention teams that would be funded by this bill. We want people to report information about someone who may present a danger to students, but the bill does not include requirements that these systems provide adequate due process protections for students against whom a report is made. I have longstanding concerns about the increased use of law enforcement in schools. History tells us that, without proper training, use of such policies can have a disproportionate impact on students of color and students with disabilities. In the decades since Columbine, when the Nation rushed to increase school-based law enforcement efforts, thousands of vulnerable students have entered the school-to-prison pipeline for conduct that should be treated as routine behavior violations. I fear, therefore, that efforts to increase school-based law enforcement without guardrails to ensure it is done well and based on strong evidence may repeat the risks of the past. My concern is only heightened by the Trump administration's ongoing efforts to remove important tools to ensure States and school districts understand their civil rights obligations when disciplining students. I urge Secretary DeVos and Attorney General Sessions to maintain current discipline and school resource officer guidance to ensure implementation of this bill does not exacerbate the school-to-prison pipeline. We should have had the opportunity to address these important issues through consideration in committee, but we did not. Like the sponsors of this bill, I want Congress to do more to make our schools safer. Therefore, I will support this bill today, not withstanding the serious concerns I have outlined, with the hope that we will address these concerns going forward. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H. Con. Res. 79, a bill originally introduced by Representative Conyers of Michigan, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an exceptional young Australian who is currently interning in my Washington D.C. office. Kristy Baxter came to our office as part of the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Programme (UCWIP) and has been a valuable contributor to our efforts on behalf of New York's Tenth Congressional District. UCWIP has worked with congressional offices to foster strong ties and understanding between the United States and Australian governments by bringing the best and the brightest from top Australian universities to intern on Capitol Hill. I am proud to have personally hosted 14 Australians since 2003--each bringing their own unique outlooks on policy and desire to contribute. Kristy, a student from Deakin University, studying a Bachelor of International Studies, has interned in our office since January and has quickly proved herself to be a highly valuable member of our team. Over the past weeks, it has been a pleasure to see her swiftly develop into an increasingly confident and pro-active individual. Her innate curiosity to learn, matched with her willingness to work hard, saw her tasked with researching Medicare and the healthcare industry, tax havens and financial secrecy as well as attending foreign affairs briefings on difficulties with post-conflict transition in Colombia and the involvement of the U.S. intelligence community in Sudan. Kristy is an exceptionally calm and affable presence in the office and encounters everyone she meets with respect. Through hard work, dedication and ability to learn from those around her, Kristy became a tremendous asset to our office and the Tenth Congressional District. My team has learned a great deal about the current political situation in Australia as Kristy's fascination with America continues to grow. She is an absolute pleasure to have in the office and I offer her my thanks for a job well done. I wish her the best of luck in all of her future endeavors.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, before we discuss the bill before us today, I want to address the horrible school shooting in Florida yesterday. We mourn the deaths of those shot and killed, and we support those who were injured and the families of the victims. But we must also do more to prevent future shootings in our schools and on our streets. There have been 18 school shootings in this country so far this year, and it is only February. According to a Washington Post analysis, over the last 19 years, more than 150,000 students attending at least 170 primary and secondary schools have experienced a shooting on campus. That does not include violence outside of the classroom. We cannot allow this to continue. It is long past due for the House to consider legislation on this floor to help prevent gun violence. Our calls for hearings and for action on gun violence prevention legislation have been met with silence. Congress did nothing after Columbine 20 years ago, and nothing after Sandy Hook 5 years ago. Inaction is unacceptable. Moments of silence are completely inadequate. Our citizens demand that we act without delay. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 620, the so-called ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017, would undermine the civil rights of Americans with disabilities by significantly weakening the key enforcement tool of the ADA Act of 1990, which is the filing of private lawsuits by discrimination victims. Congress passed the ADA 28 years ago with the goals of fully integrating persons with disabilities into the mainstream of American life and counteracting discriminatory social attitudes toward the disabled. By making it harder for persons facing such discrimination to vindicate their rights in court, this bill ultimately undermines those goals. H.R. 620 would, among other things, institute a pre-suit notice and cure regime under the title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in public accommodations, like hotels, restaurants, private schools, and healthcare providers. Specifically, the bill would prohibit a disability discrimination victim from filing a lawsuit to enforce his or her rights under title III unless the victim first notifies a business of a title III violation. The victim must then wait up to 180 days to allow the business either to comply with the law or simply to make some undefined level of substantial progress--whatever that means--toward complying with the law. No Federal civil rights statute imposes such onerous requirements on discrimination victims before they can have the opportunity to enforce their rights in court. Both individually and cumulatively, this bill's notice and cure provisions will have the effect of inappropriately shifting the burden of compliance with the Federal civil rights statute from the alleged wrongdoer onto the discrimination victim and perversely incentivizing businesses not to comply voluntarily with the ADA. Moreover, because H.R. 620 does not define the term ``substantial progress,'' the bill leaves it entirely to a businessowner's discretion as to whether he has made such progress. At a minimum, this raises the prospect of expensive and protracted litigation over the question of whether the business has made sufficiently substantial progress should a lawsuit be filed. Such a prospect, along with the need to wait 180 days before filing a lawsuit, may be enough to deter discrimination victims with meritorious claims from even sending a notice of violation, much less filing suit to enforce their rights. In addition, the bill's notice requirement is overly burdensome and excessive. Rather than simply requiring an aggrieved person to notify a business of the existence of an access barrier, H.R. 620 essentially requires the person to plead a legal case in his or her initial notice. For instance, a victim must cite the specific provision of the ADA that has been violated, describe whether the victim made a request to the business about removing an access barrier, and explain whether an access barrier was temporary or permanent. Such specific information may be very difficult or impossible for a discrimination victim to provide at the notice stage, particularly without legal counsel. Finally, H.R. 620 does not even address the purported problem identified by his proponents who claim that a pre-suit notification is needed to stop lawyers from filing numerous similar lawsuits alleging both Federal ADA claims and State law claims against numerous businesses in order to force quick settlements. That is because many States allow for damages under their State disability rights laws. But this ignores the fact that title III of the Federal ADA only permits recovery of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, no recovery of money damages. In other words, it is State law, not the Federal ADA, which provides the financial incentive for pursuing numerous lawsuits. Additionally, the filing of multiple suits alleging violations of the ADA or State disability laws says nothing about the underlying merits of those suits or the intent of the parties involved. To the extent that lawyers actually engage in misconduct, courts already have the tools to address such misconduct, including imposing sanctions, refusing to award attorneys' fees, or dismissing cases that have no legal or factual basis. A pre-suit notification requirement, together with a lack of any requirement to actually comply with the law, is a virtual get-out-of- jail-free card for every public accommodation in America. H.R. 620 substantially diminishes the primary incentive for voluntary compliance with title III, which is the credible risk of being sued and having to pay reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. H.R. 620's notice and cure requirements, by starkly diminishing the risk of litigation, would send a clear and devastating message to every public accommodation in America that there is no need to comply voluntarily with the ADA. Instead, the bill tells businesses that they should simply wait and see if they ever receive a notice of a violation and to forget about the rights and needs of people with disabilities until then. As the former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge wrote recently in The Hill in opposing H.R. 620: ``. . . it is unacceptable to roll back the civil rights of people with disabilities. We should ensure access, not progress. We should expect businesses to know and comply with their obligations, not require our neighbors and colleagues with disabilities to shoulder the burden of informing and educating businesses about those obligations. We should not turn the business of everyday life into a complex and legal ordeal for people with disabilities.'' For the foregoing reasons, I oppose H.R. 620 and I urge the House to reject this deeply flawed bill. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip and one of the original authors of the ADA in 1990.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, 28 years after the ADA's passage, too many businesses remain inaccessible to persons with disabilities. The last thing Congress should be doing is undermining the civil rights of a discrete and insular minority group by making it virtually impossible to enforce their rights in court. That is why more than 230 disability rights groups, civil rights groups, labor unions, and veterans organizations strongly oppose H.R. 620, including the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the AARP, the NAACP, Human Rights Campaign, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the United Spinal Association, the National Federation of the Blind, and the National Disability Rights Network. I urge the House to abide by these groups' concerns with H.R. 620 and reject this deeply problematic legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the intent behind this amendment to make the notice provision of H.R. 620 slightly less onerous, and I acknowledge that it does so by eliminating the requirement that an aggrieved person cite in his or her initial notice to a business the specific ADA provision being violated. The amendment, however, still leaves in place the basic problem with the bill, the basic problem with the notice and cure provision, and that is the notice and cure provision. Therefore, it does not alleviate any of the real concerns with the underlying bill. Again, the basic notice and cure provisions of the bill turn on its head the normal practice of any civil rights statute in which the burden of compliance is on the actor, not on the victim. Here, we put the burden of compliance on the victim. The debate has been as if people have not had 28 years to come into compliance, only to find out they are not in compliance when someone complains about it, some victim is victimized. That is just wrong. This goes in exactly the wrong direction. Although this amendment would slightly alleviate the provision, it is putting lipstick on a pig. For this reason and in deference to the disability rights community, which opposes this amendment and the pre- suit notice and cure requirements, I must oppose the amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Langevin-Harper amendment. This bipartisan amendment removes from the bill its onerous and unjustified notice and cure provisions while leaving in place its potentially helpful educational and mediation-related provisions. As I discussed extensively during general debate, the notice and cure provisions would have the effect of drastically weakening the ability of discrimination victims enforcing their rights in court. Any law, including the ADA, is only effective to the extent that it is enforceable, and civil rights statutes, particularly, depend primarily on private rights of action for their enforcement. By weakening enforcement, H.R. 620's notice and cure provisions ultimately undermine the ADA's goal of integrating people with disabilities into the mainstream of American life. For these reasons, I urge the House to adopt the Langevin-Harper amendment which cures most of the problems with this bill.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not appear to make any substantive change to H.R. 620. Whether or not the amendment is adopted, it still would be the case under the bill that a businessowner who fails to make substantial progress in removing an access barrier would be subject to a lawsuit. The amendment, however, does not address the fundamental concerns with H.R. 620's notice and cure provisions that I expressed in general debate, including the fact that the bill does not require a business to comply with the ADA, only to make ``substantial progress'' toward compliance within the bill's 180-day cure period. While the amendment does not make the bill worse, it also does not make the bill better. Regrettably, therefore, I must oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4712, the so- called Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Despite what its supporters would have us believe, this legislation would do nothing to enhance protections or enhance the quality of care if an infant is born after an attempted abortion. What it would do, however, is directly interfere with the doctor's medical judgment and dictate a medical standard of care that may not be appropriate in all circumstances, which could, in fact, put infants' lives at greater risk. Let me say at the outset of this debate very clearly, it has always been the law that healthcare providers cannot deliberately harm newborn infants and that they must exercise reasonable care in their treatment of such infants. The bill's implications that providers who provide abortions routinely act in a callous or criminal manner that would result in an infant's death or that a provider who performs an abortion somehow cannot be trusted to take adequate measures to save a living baby's life is insulting and untrue. In opposing this bill. I do not oppose in any way proper medical treatment for newborn infants, whatever the circumstances of their birth, but determining the proper treatment is for medical professionals to decide, not politicians in Congress. When I supported the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002, my reasoning and the reasoning of my pro-choice colleagues was simple: Killing an infant who is born alive either by an act of omission or commission is infanticide. It was, is, and always should be against the law, and we saw no harm in reaffirming that fact. That law passed Congress with bipartisan support precisely because it was harmless, even if it was also useless, since it did not change the preexisting law in any way. The bill specifically just reiterated existing law in florid language and did nothing to interfere with a doctor's medical judgment or to cause needless harm. Unfortunately, the bill before us today puts children's lives and health at risk. It requires doctors to immediately ensure transportation and admission of the infant to a hospital in all cases, with no regard as to whether doing so is in the best interest of the child's health and well-being. This mandate effectively overrides the case-by-case exercise of professional medical judgment by healthcare providers and replaces it with a blanket rule enforceable with criminal penalties. Such a ham- fisted approach fails to consider the fact that, in many cases, it may be safer and more conducive for the infant's health to care for the infant where it was born rather than transporting it many miles away. But this bill assumes that Congress knows better, and it imposes a new obligation on providers that, rather than saving lives, could put infants at risk. I am sure that such a result is not what the bill's supporters intend, but all too often, this is what happens when Members of Congress try to dictate a physician's exercise of professional medical judgment. Perhaps if this bill had gone through regular order, we could have avoided this unfortunate situation, but there has never been a committee markup or a hearing on this bill. I would have welcomed the opportunity to hear from expert witnesses on best practices and standards of care for infants. Members could have offered amendments and perfected the bill to ensure that it achieves our common goal of providing the best, most medically appropriate care to infants and their mothers. I am disappointed but not surprised that my colleagues rushed this bill to the floor when there is no evidence at all that doctors currently are failing to provide an appropriate level of care and a chorus of provider groups oppose the bill. This is clearly an effort to have this vote coincide with the presence of many anti-choice demonstrators in Washington. Sadly, rather than protecting infants, my Republican colleagues are putting them at greater risk in the service of politics. I cannot support H.R. 4712 because it mandates a particular course of treatment: immediate transport to a hospital, which may not be appropriate in every case and may be medically dangerous in certain cases. It abandons the practice of considering the best medical interest of infants and their mothers. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-conceived legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.