Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Democratic leader.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, many of us are opposing this bill and supporting the amendment because it is very different from the Judiciary Committee bill that we reported, which was a good bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong opposition to the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017, which reauthorizes section 702 of FISA for 6 years without enacting adequate protections for our privacy. Supporters of this measure want to convince us a new, incredibly narrow warrant provision actually constitutes reform. It does not. Our right to privacy does not begin when the Department of Justice has a fully formed criminal case against us, nor does it begin when prosecutors enter our emails and text messages into evidence against us in court. The Constitution guarantees far more than this. Our right to privacy protects us when the government first makes its decision to search our private communications for information it might find useful. S. 139 falls well short of this basic guarantee. We, therefore, cannot--we must not--support this bill. Make no mistake: S. 139 is not a compromise. The Judiciary Committee, the technology companies, civil society, and other critical stakeholders were shut out of this conversation long ago. S. 139 does not include a meaningful warrant requirement. The rule in this bill does not apply to most searches of the section 702 database. It does not apply to a query for any information that ``could mitigate a threat,'' an exception that threatens to swallow the entire rule. As a result, S. 139 allows the FBI unfettered access to this information for purely domestic nonterrorism cases without a warrant. What does that mean in the year of Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump? It means that absolutely nothing stops the Department of Justice from trolling the database for evidence that you use marijuana or failed to pay your taxes or may be in the country unlawfully or possess a firearm that you should not have. None of these cases have anything to do with the core purposes of section 702, and all of them should require a warrant based on individualized suspicion and probable cause. I agree with Chairman Goodlatte that section 702 should be reauthorized. I understand its importance to the intelligence agencies. But none of us should support this bill which pretends at reform while codifying some of the worst practices of the intelligence community in domestic crimes. When we came to Congress, each of us took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. I ask that each of my colleagues honor that oath today and that we work together to defeat this bill and to bring the right set of reforms to the floor without delay. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life and legacy of Marcus Goodman Raskin, who passed away on December 24, 2017 at the age of 83. He was a committed civil rights advocate, staunch antiwar activist, respected academic, and prolific author. Born in Milwaukee on April 30, 1934, Mr. Raskin, whose father was a plumber and mother was a seamstress, was a musical prodigy and studied piano at the Julliard School. Nevertheless, he abandoned a musical career to study politics at the University of Chicago and graduated from the University's Law School. He later worked for Robert W. Kastenmeier, a highly respected liberal Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from the State of Wisconsin. Thereafter, he joined the Kennedy Administration as an assistant to National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy. Based on this experience, he went on to found, together with Richard J. Barnet, the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive think tank studying nuclear disarmament, economic inequality, civil rights, and national security. With the advent of the Vietnam War, Mr. Raskin actively opposed the draft and aggressively urged resistance to the war, for which he became the target of law enforcement prosecutors. He played a significant role in facilitating the publication in The New York Times of the Pentagon Papers, a comprehensive classified study that exposed the faulty decision-making leading to the United States' entry into the Vietnam War. As a result of his antiwar activism, Mr. Raskin was added to President Richard M. Nixon's notorious ``enemies list'', along with such other luminaries as journalist Daniel Schorr, movie actor Paul Newman, and various Members of Congress. Notwithstanding the loss of Mr. Raskin, we are fortunate that his son, Representative Jamie Raskin, a Representative from the State of Maryland, currently serves as Vice Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee. In addition, the Committee has benefitted from the outstanding service provided by Maggie Lopatin, his granddaughter, who was the administrative backbone of the Committee for six years. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to commend the life and inspiring achievements of Mr. Raskin and to offer my heartfelt condolences to his loving family.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the distinguished chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. (Mr. CICILLINE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for a unanimous consent request. (Ms. JACKSON Lee asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the 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, I rise in strong opposition to the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. This bill would not protect us from gun violence, but it would make us far less safe. Under current law, each State makes its own determination about who may carry a concealed firearm in public, including deciding which other States' concealed carry permits to recognize. This bill would eviscerate the core public safety determinations that each State makes concerning the concealed carrying of guns in public based on the unique circumstances of each State and the desires of its citizens. In fact, the standards and requirements adopted in the States vary dramatically: Thirty-one States and D.C. require gun safety training to carry concealed guns in public, and 21 of those States require live-fire training; 27 States and the District of Columbia prohibit individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes of violence from concealed carry; 28 States and D.C. prohibit convicted stalkers from carrying concealed guns; 34 States and D.C. prohibit those under 21 years of age from carrying concealed guns. Many States prohibit gun possession and concealed carry by abusive dating partners, exceeding Federal protections against abusive spouses. All of these States would have their carefully considered laws governing concealed carry overridden by this bill. The obvious solution to the varying State laws is to continue to do what is currently done by many States, which is to choose which other State permits they will recognize. Some States, including my State of New York, have chosen not to recognize permits issued by any other State. Most States, however, have chosen to recognize permits from at least some other States, basing the choice on the strength and standards employed by the other States. We should not disregard these determinations, which is what this bill would do. Instead, this bill would say that every State must honor the concealed carry permit of every other State. About 10 States don't have any requirements and issue a concealed carry permit upon request to anyone. What this bill would do, in effect, is to say that if New York or Illinois have strict requirements for concealed carry, if someone comes in from a State that doesn't, they have to let that person have concealed carry in their State. In effect, it uses the power of the Federal Government to import the laws of one State and make them enforceable in the other State. In addition, I am deeply disappointed that the version of this bill before us today includes the bipartisan Fix NICS Act, a measure that should be enacted as a stand-alone bill without delay, and that was reported as a separate bill by the Judiciary Committee. That bill would take steps to address shortcomings with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or what we often call the NICS. As the recent mass shooting at the church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, illustrates, we must do more to ensure all relevant prohibiting records are submitted to the databases that comprise the NICS. No one should pass a firearm background check that he or she should have failed simply because their record of a felony conviction, or domestic violence record, or some other prohibition under Federal law was not included in the system. There is broad bipartisan support for the Fix NICS bill here in the House and in the Senate. That proposal, which would actually save lives, should not be tethered to the forced concealed carry reciprocity provisions of this bill, which would only serve to endanger our citizens. The answer to our national problem of gun violence is not that we need more people carrying concealed firearms on our streets. More than 33,000 Americans lose their lives to gun violence every year, while, in some other countries, this figure barely exceeds 100. In 2011, the United Kingdom had 146 deaths due to gun violence; Denmark, 71; Portugal, 142; Japan, just 30; the United States, over 30,000. A study in The American Journal of Medicine found that, compared to 22 other high-income countries, the gun-related murder rate in the United States is 25 times higher. The common factor in all of these other countries is the lack of such easy availability of guns. Our country, however, is awash in guns, and we have the shameful death toll to show for it. Sadly, this bill will only increase it. We must change our approach to gun violence and adopt meaningful legislation that strengthens our gun laws instead of weakening them; and we must not undermine the efforts of States to defend their citizens against these arms. Unfortunately, the dangers posed by the concealed carry reciprocity portion of this bill greatly outweigh the benefits of the NICS improvements; therefore, I oppose H.R. 38, and urge my colleagues to reject it today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this bill is advanced I am not sure in the name of what, but what it is going to do is make us less safe and to overrule all our States. Under this bill, someone who lives in New York could go to another State--doesn't even have to go to another State; just apply to the other State, get a concealed carry permit from that State, never set foot in that State, and then use it in New York; thus, overriding New York's laws. We have heard it said that this bill is necessary to protect the Second Amendment constitutional rights of gun owners. But the fact is, there is no Second Amendment constitutional right for concealed carry. In the District of Columbia v. Heller case in which the Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment established a personal right, Justice Scalia's opinion held that the Second Amendment was not unlimited, a variety of gun regulations were entirely consistent with the Constitution, and he said: The majority of American courts to consider the question have held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment for State analogues. So the Second Amendment argument is simply wrong or disingenuous. But let me say also that we are living in an epidemic of gun violence. 33,000 Americans are killed every year, and 30,000 more every year. No other country approaches this. No country--other than those at war--in peacetime has more than 300 or 400, or even 100 or 72, and we have 33,000. It is not because of mental illness. It is because of the presence of large numbers of gun. A 2017 Stanford University study found a direct correlation with the most permissive concealed carry laws and violent crime. General studies have shown a direct correlation of the presence of the number of guns and murder rates by guns. So this is a bill that is a death sentence for many Americans. That is what this bill is. It is a death sentence without trial for many Americans by increasing the danger of guns by overruling States that fear and that we don't want concealed weapons on the New York City subway or the Chicago metro or other places of great concentrations of people. But no, we, in our wisdom, are going to say the States with the least restrictive, perhaps most rural, maybe sensible restrictions for them, will impose those restrictions on other States. It is wrong. It is a death sentence for many Americans. It ought not pass. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

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

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), who is the chairman of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force.