[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MEMBER DAY HEARING
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-49
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
47-452 WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair
ZOE LOFGREN, California DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, Ranking
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas Member
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., Wisconsin
Georgia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
KAREN BASS, California JIM JORDAN, Ohio
CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana KEN BUCK, Colorado
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
ERIC SWALWELL, California MATT GAETZ, Florida
TED LIEU, California MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington TOM McCLINTOCK, California
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
J. LUIS CORREA, California GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas BEN CLINE, Virginia
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
LUCY McBATH, Georgia W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
GREG STANTON, Arizona
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
BRENDAN BELAIR, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Friday, September 20, 2019
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Vice-Chair of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of Pennsylvania................... 1
The Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Member of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State of Texas.............................. 2
WITNESSES
The Honorable Judy Chu, a Member of Congress from the State of
California
Oral Testimony................................................. 3
Prepared Testimony............................................. 5
The Honorable Elaine G. Luria, a Member of Congress from the
State of Virginia
Oral Testimony................................................. 7
Prepared Testimony............................................. 9
The Honorable Mike Gallagher, a Member of Congress from the State
of Wisconsin
Oral Testimony................................................. 10
The Honorable Greg Gianforte, a Member of Congress from the State
of Montana
Oral Testimony................................................. 11
The Honorable Mark Takano, a Member of Congress from the State of
California
Oral Testimony................................................. 12
Prepared Testimony............................................. 14
The Honorable Dan Newhouse, a Member of Congress from the State
of Washington
Oral Testimony................................................. 19
The Honorable Vicky Hartzler, a Member of Congress from the State
of Missouri
Oral Testimony................................................. 37
The Honorable Steve King, a Member of Congress from the State of
Iowa
Oral Testimony................................................. 39
The Honorable Debra A. Haaland, a Member of Congress from the
State of New Mexico
Oral Testimony................................................. 40
Prepared Testimony............................................. 43
The Honorable Tom Malinowski, a Member of Congress from the State
of New Jersey
Oral Testimony................................................. 45
Prepared Testimony............................................. 47
The Honorable Mike Quigley, a Member of Congress from the State
of Illinois
Oral Testimony................................................. 50
Prepared Testimony............................................. 52
The Honorable John Katko, a Member of Congress from the State of
New York
Oral Testimony................................................. 58
The Honorable Steve Stivers, a Member of Congress from the State
of Ohio
Oral Testimony................................................. 59
Prepared Testimony............................................. 62
The Honorable Roger Marshall, a Member of Congress from the State
of Kansas
Oral Testimony................................................. 66
The Honorable David P. Roe, a Member of Congress from the State
of Tennessee
Oral Testimony................................................. 67
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Items for the record submitted by the Honorable Dan Newhouse, a
Member of Congress from the State of Washington
A letter from the Honorable Dan Newhouse, a Member of Congress
from the State of Washington................................. 22
A letter from Cheri Kilty, Executive Director, YWCA of Yakima.. 24
A letter from JoDe Goudy, Chairman, Yakama Nation Tribal
Council...................................................... 25
A letter from Carolyn DeFord, Founder, Missing and Murdered
Native Americans............................................. 27
A letter from Michelle Gonzalez, Director, Washington State
Women's Commission........................................... 28
A letter from Shannon F. Wheeler, Chairman, Nez Perce Tribal
Executive Committee.......................................... 30
A letter from Jaison Elkins, Chairman, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 32
A letter from Thomas D. Wooten, Chairman, Samish Indian Nation. 34
A letter from David Z. Bean, Chairman, Puyallup Tribal Council. 35
A letter from Rodney Cawston, Chairman, The Confederated Tribes
of the Colville Reservation.................................. 36
APPENDIX
A statement from the Honorable Lisa Blunt Rochester from the
State of Delaware for the record............................... 72
A statement from the Honorable Tony Cardenas from the State of
California for the record...................................... 74
A statement from the Honorable Rick Crawford from the State of
Arkansas for the record........................................ 75
A statement from the Honorable Elijah E. Cummings from the State
of Maryland for the record..................................... 77
A statement from the Honorable Peter A. DeFazio from the State of
Oregon for the record.......................................... 81
A statement from the Honorable Anna G. Eshoo from the State of
California for the record...................................... 83
A statement from the Honorable Ro Khanna from the State of
California for the record...................................... 85
A statement from the Honorable Adam Kinzinger from the State of
Illinois for the record........................................ 87
A statement from the Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney from the State
of New York for the record..................................... 89
A statement from the Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard from the
State of California for the record............................. 95
A statement from the Honorable John H. Rutherford from the State
of Florida for the record...................................... 97
A statement from the Honorable Mike Simpson from the State of
Idaho for the record........................................... 98
A statement from the Honorable Darren Soto from the State of
Florida for the record......................................... 100
A statement from the Honorable Randy Weber from the State of
Texas for the record........................................... 101
MEMBER DAY HEARING
----------
Friday, September 20, 2019
House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:13 a.m., in Room
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mary Gay Scanlon
presiding.
Present: Representatives Scanlon, Stanton, Gohmert, Jordan,
Biggs, and Cline.
Staff Present: Matt Robinson, Counsel; Madeline Strasser,
Chief Clerk; Jordan Dashow, Professional Staff Member; John
Doty, Senior Advisor; Bobby Parmiter, Minority Deputy Staff
Director/Chief Counsel; Tom Stoll, Minority Chief Counsel, IP/
Courts Subcommittee; and Erica Barker, Minority Chief
Legislative Clerk.
Ms. Scanlon. The House Committee on the Judiciary will come
to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Committee at any time.
We are coming to order.
We welcome everyone to this morning's Member Day hearing,
and I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Today we have the opportunity to hear the views of our
colleagues on both sides of the aisle about their legislative
interests and priorities on matters within this committee's
jurisdiction.
The Judiciary Committee is responsible for a broad array of
issues, including the Federal judiciary, criminal justice,
administrative procedure, bankruptcy, civil rights and civil
liberties, constitutional amendments, immigration, intellectual
property, oversight, antitrust, and much more.
Already, on a bipartisan basis, we have passed several
bills to lower prescription drug prices, a number of bankruptcy
bills, providing much-needed financial relief for veterans,
family farmers, and small businesses, and legislation to
permanently reauthorize the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund.
We have also examined the State of competition in
healthcare markets, performed oversight on the Copyright Office
and the Patent and Trademark Office, and held a series of
hearings as part of the Committee's bipartisan investigation of
competition in digital markets.
This is just a small sampling of what the Committee has
accomplished this year, and we will continue to have an active
and varied agenda over the rest of this Congress. I look
forward to hearing from my colleagues on matters of interest to
them to help inform this work. The House of Representatives is
fortunate to have a broad and diverse array of views among its
Members, and I know that this Committee's work will be
strengthened by hearing from our colleagues.
I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, for
his opening statement.
Mr. Gohmert. I thank the Chair and appreciate all our
Member friends being here today.
This is a big deal, and it is important for us to--I think
we don't do this in my other Committee, but to be able to come
together and talk together like this, hear from people that are
outside the Committee. That doesn't happen enough, and so I am
grateful we are doing this.
Since we are, I have a case that was just decided which
makes some legislation I filed a companion to the Senate bill
that would outlaw female genital mutilation, be called the
Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act of 2019.
We have been told, well, we are not going to take that up
because that is in the courts, and it looks like it will take
care of itself.
Well, it did, and yesterday we got the report that the
Sixth Circuit had struck down Congress' effort to intervene and
have female genital mutilation considered illegal. That effort
has been struck down.
So, it makes this, H.R. 3583, like I say, it has got a
Senate companion, and it is exactly the same, so we could get
this into law and start protecting young girls and women very
quickly. The Ranking Member, Mr. Collins from Georgia, has
cosigned on, as the former Chair, Mr. Sensenbrenner has, and
numerous others.
So, I would encourage the majority, let's go ahead and
bring this bill. Let's do it.
I found out just before we started the Committee that
actually there is a new bill being prepared that is almost
identical. It references the Sixth Circuit. So, the majority
can file it. Of course, the line here in Washington is it is
amazing what you can get done if you don't care who gets the
credit.
I think it would be better to use 3583, because it has a
Senate companion. We could get this into law. We could be
protecting young girls and women from the horrible brutality
that so many have had to experience.
One other thing I would like to bring up is I know OGR had
a hearing on DC statehood. The Founders carved out this area of
the District of Columbia from Maryland and Virginia, 10 square
miles, because they did not want any jurisdiction to be able to
hold them up and have that kind of power. Statehood would
change the entire thinking of the Founders of having this
enclave that was a Federal enclave.
It bothered me when I first got to Washington and I saw the
license plates taxation without representation. Then I got to
thinking about it. Well, wait a minute. That is something very
important to us. Ben Franklin said if we don't elect one Member
of Parliament, then they have no right to ever put any tax on
us.
Then I found out Puerto Rico, they don't have a Federal
income tax. Mariana Islands, Guam, all these territories that
don't have a full voting Member, they don't pay Federal income
tax. The District of Columbia does not have a full voting
Member. They pay Federal income tax. That really isn't right.
So, in all but one of the sessions, since this first came
to my attention, I filed a bill, and it should be finished
today to refile it again in this session, and that is no
Federal income tax for the residents of the District of
Columbia. They do not elect a full voting Member of Congress.
They should not--just like Puerto Rico, all our other
territories--they shouldn't have to pay Federal income tax.
If the majority prevails at some point and they have a full
voting Representative, then, yes, it would be okay to have a
Federal income tax. I still think it is grossly unfair that we
treat them in a way we don't treat any other territory, any
other non-State. So, I hope we will do that for the people of
Washington, DC. It is really an injustice, and it does bring to
mind some of the slogans that fired up people in the
Revolution.
So, those are two things that I would hope the majority
will take up, protecting girls and women and treating the
residents of the District of Columbia like we treat everybody
else that doesn't elect a full voting Member. I thank the Chair
for her indulgence. Thank you very much and thank you all
again.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you very much.
Before we proceed with the Members, I just want to note
that there is a Judiciary bill on the floor right now, so many
of the Members of the Committee are there involved in the
debate on that bill.
Without objection, all opening statements will be included
in the record. We are proceeding today on a first come, first
served basis. Please note that each of your written statements
will be entered into the record in its entirety, and I would
ask that you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes.
We will now hear from the gentlelady from California, Ms.
Chu.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JUDY CHU, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Chu. Chair Scanlon and Members of the Judiciary
Committee, thank you for holding this Member Day hearing today.
As a former Member of this Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to speak about some of my priorities, especially
around immigration policy over which you have jurisdiction.
I am grateful for the work that this Committee has already
done in marking up and passing the Dream and Promise Act of
2019 and holding numerous hearings on the critical issues of
family separation and detention.
This Administration has created an unprecedented attack on
immigrant communities and through its policies divided
families. I am deeply disappointed that the Supreme Court
upheld the third iteration of the ban that excludes people from
predominantly Muslim-majority countries.
That is why I introduced H.R. 2214, the NO BAN Act, which
repeals all iterations of the Muslim ban, the asylum ban, and
extreme vetting for the refugee executive order. It also
requires the Administration to consult with the State
Department and the Department of Homeland Security and to brief
Congress before making such suspensions.
My bill has 172 cosponsors, and I am pleased that the
Committee is planning to hold a hearing next week to examine
the injustice of the Muslim ban policy. I hope the NO BAN Act
can be marked up and brought to the House floor for a vote
soon.
This Administration is going even further. It is attacking
families that already live here in the United States. I am the
author of H.R. 3222, the No Federal Funds for Public Charge
Act, which would block any funding from being used to implement
the discriminatory public charge Rule put forth by the
Department of Homeland Security.
Immigrants who use public benefits, like food stamps or
Medicaid, benefits that they have paid into through taxes,
should not be penalized when they apply for green cards or
other adjustments of immigration status. Already we are seeing
a decrease in healthcare enrollment in communities fearful of
using services that they are actually eligible for. This policy
only leads to more sickness and hunger in our communities.
I also believe that we must do better by the immigrant
children who are crossing the border and being detained in
emergency influx shelters. I personally visited Tornillo last
year and was horrified at the conditions at that camp.
My bill, H.R. 1069, the Shut Down Child Prison Camps Act,
was introduced with Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon to make sure
that any facilities where children are held, that they comply
with the protections in the Flores settlement agreement.
Luckily, Tornillo has been shut down, but the facilities like
those in Homestead, Florida, continue to be operated.
I also urge this Committee to address the family-based
immigration backlog. There are currently over 4 million people
in the family immigration backlog waiting to reunite with their
loved ones. The average wait time for a permanent resident to
sponsor an unmarried son or daughter from Mexico is over 20
years.
My bill, H.R. 3799, the Reuniting Families Act, modernizes
our family immigration system and provides relief to families
who have been separated for years. Specifically, the bill
recaptures unused visas lost over the past two decades,
increases per-country limits, and prevents children from aging
out and losing their place in line due to bureaucratic delays.
The bill also reforms our immigration-based immigration
system by clearing backlogs and increasing the number of visas
from 55,000-80,000 visas per year.
Finally, I am planning to reintroduce the Protect Our
Workers from Exploitation and Retaliation Act in the coming
weeks. The POWER Act protects U visa eligibility for immigrant
workers who report unsafe or unfair labor practices. It also
strengthens labor agencies' investigative powers and allows a
stay of removal and work authorization for workers who file a
workplace claim.
Thank you again for allowing me to testify, and I look
forward to working with the Committee on passing legislation to
address these issues.
[The statement of Ms. Chu follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you very much.
Next we will hear from the gentlelady from Virginia, Ms.
Luria.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ELAINE G. LURIA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Ms. Luria. Thank you, Madam Chair and the Members of the
Judiciary Committee, for giving me this opportunity today.
As the mother of a 10-year-old daughter, I can tell you
there is nothing worse than watching your child in pain. We all
want what is best for our children, and I trust that the
Members of this Committee share my concern for children
suffering from rare or debilitating diseases.
The unfortunate reality is that our outdated marijuana laws
cause chronically ill children to suffer from unbearable bouts
of pain every day. Your Committee can spare these children from
this unthinkable agony.
That is why I am here today to encourage the Judiciary
Committee to Act quickly to advance legislation to remove
marijuana from the Controlled Substances List. It defies logic,
science, and compassion that marijuana is classified as a
Schedule I drug alongside heroin.
As a mother, I will not stand on the sidelines while our
outdated marijuana laws cause an undue hardship on our children
and our families. That is why I am here today to make sure that
my colleagues hear the impact of inaction in reforming our
marijuana laws.
Madison is a 10-year-old girl from Hampton, Virginia. When
she was just 5 years old, Madison was diagnosed with a rare
form of brain cancer. Only 200 adults and children are
diagnosed with this form of cancer every year, and the 10-year
survival rate is only 20 percent.
Over the last 4 years, Madison has had multiple major
surgeries, severe bouts of pain, and very difficult treatments.
After numerous treatments, Madison's family began to experiment
with cannabis products to make life more bearable for her, and,
thankfully, it worked. Madison is now able to go to school,
play with friends, and do things that most 10-year-old girls
do.
I would love to say that this is the end, and everyone
lived happily ever after, but that is not the case. Our archaic
medical marijuana policies prevent Madison from receiving her
treatment on a legal basis.
Since cannabis is a Schedule I drug, Madison's mother could
be arrested, have her property seized, or lose her daughter to
Child Protective Services by doing what is best for her
daughter. Madison's mother is risking everything, but she is
doing exactly what any mother would do for their child.
Today I ask you, aren't we better than this? Why can't
Congress stand up for children like Madison?
Our marijuana laws are not only out of step with the
scientific community, but they are also out of step with the
American people we were sent here to represent. According to a
recent poll, 93 percent of Americans support medical marijuana.
Children like Madison with rare diseases do not have time
on their side. I urge the Committee to Act quickly to advance
legislation that deschedules marijuana so that we can stand up
for children like Madison in our communities.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today.
[The statement of Ms. Luria follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you very much.
We will now hear from the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Gallagher.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE GALLAGHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you.
I would like to talk today about my bill, H.R. 1522, the
Congressional and Executive Foreign Lobbying Ban Act.
This bill would prohibit Members of Congress, high-ranking
executive branch officials, and flag and general officers of
the Armed Forces from lobbying for foreign principals under the
Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, upon their retirement
from government service.
Public trust, and we have all heard these statistics, in
government has reached near all-time lows. Only 17 percent of
Americans say they trust their government in Washington all or
most of the time. That figure, just for historical context, was
73 percent when President Eisenhower was in office 60 years
ago.
Today, stories of foreign influence and lobbying
increasingly dominate the headlines. Americans who are already
skeptical of their government see highly trusted former
government officials, Representatives, and even Members of the
military selling their influence and reputations to represent
foreign entities, including some whose interests directly
contravene those of the United States.
For example, numerous former Representatives, Senators, and
Executive Branch officials have signed up to work on behalf of
various State-directed Chinese interests, including Huawei and
ZTE, Chinese telecom companies that are in a life-or-death
struggle with Western-aligned companies for the future of
global communications.
This is not an accident. The Chinese Communist Party's
goal--to use the swamp to advance its interests and undermine
our national security--is hiding in plain sight. We cannot let
them succeed. To better defend ourselves, we need to update our
laws regarding foreign influence.
When trusted officials turn around and offer their
reputation and experience in service of our adversaries, they
damage public trust in our government while advancing hostile
interests. Therefore, my Congressional and Executive Foreign
Lobbying Ban Act is a targeted reform that aims to prevent some
of the worst abuses of access we have seen in recent years.
This is not about restricting freedom of speech. Rather, it
is about preventing those with the most extensive insider
connections from profiting off those connections to the
detriment of our national interest.
Again, this ban extends only to former Members of Congress,
high-ranking Executive Branch officials, and flag and general
officers.
I believe this legislation is a concrete step that should
bring both sides of the aisle together. Passing this bill would
show the American people that we are serious about doing away
with some of the most egregious peddling of influence that we
have seen in the swamp and certainly the kind that most
directly undermines our national security.
So once again, I thank you for giving me this opportunity
to speak here today. I hope we can get ahead of this issue,
which I worry is going to get worse in the future as this
competition with China proceeds, and I urge this Committee to
swiftly take up and pass H.R. 1522.
Thank you.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Gallagher.
I was remiss before. Do any Members of the Committee have
questions for our Witness? Hearing none, thank you.
All right. Next, we will hear from the gentleman from
Montana, Mr. Gianforte.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREG GIANFORTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Mr. Gianforte. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this
hearing and for Members Day today.
I know this Committee has been busy this Congress with
impeachment. The Committee held its first hearing this week,
and by all observers, it was a circus. There were clowns, tight
walk walkers, fire breathers, and shell games. The only thing
missing was the big top.
In addition to this first impeachment hearing, the
Committee also held numerous hearings on the work of Special
Counsel Robert Mueller. The Committee voted to hold the
Attorney General in contempt for following the law. Democrats
have spent the last 3 years grasping at straws to reverse the
results of the 2016 Presidential election.
That is a shame. There are serious issues confronting our
country that this Committee should be focused on. Yet, this
Committee is hot under the collar with impeachment fever,
driving the Committee to neglect those serious issues.
One of these serious issues is addressing our broken
immigration system. The American people said immigration is the
most important problem facing our country, according to a
Gallup poll.
There is a crisis on our border. In May, Americans saw the
highest number of border apprehensions in 1 month in 13 years.
Cartels are profiting from drugs and human trafficking.
I visited the southern border in Arizona and saw the crisis
firsthand. Ranchers I talked to described finding dead bodies
on their properties. When I talked with Border Patrol agents,
they told me they need more equipment, better body armor, and
physical barriers that actually work.
What it all comes down to is that our immigration system is
broken. This Committee focused on fixing it last year,
replacing visa lotteries with a merit-based system, ending
chain migration, and, yes, building a wall.
What has taken over this Committee this year? Impeachment
fever. Episodes of mass violence have shaken our country.
Cowardly individuals attack and kill innocent Americans in acts
of domestic violence.
To address this crisis, Democrats propose infringing on our
Second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. Don't just
take my word for it. Democrats have claimed for years that
nobody's coming for anybody's guns. A progressive Democrat
running for President just last week destroyed that myth,
admitting on national TV that they are coming for our guns.
Just look at H.R. 8. Democrats created an anti-Second
amendment bill. No Subcommittee hearing was held. No
Subcommittee markup was held. This Committee held no hearings.
It was considered and marked up in one day.
So how would H.R. 8 prevent tragedies of mass violence? It
wouldn't. In fact, it would make it illegal for a victim of
domestic abuse to borrow a gun for protection. It is a
dangerous step towards a national gun registry and ultimately
confiscation.
Most recently, this Committee marked up a series of bills
that provide no solutions, just false hope. It runs the gamut
from imposing arbitrary limits on magazines to depriving law-
abiding Americans of their Second amendment rights without due
process. These efforts undermine the rights of lawful gun
owners.
Do you know who won't be impacted by these false hope laws?
Criminals.
So maybe this Committee could reaffirm the importance of
enforcing existing laws to keep guns out of the hands of
criminals, like forbidding straw purchases or prosecuting
convicted criminals who try to buy guns. Maybe it could focus
on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Maybe it could
focus on evidence-based solutions that don't infringe our
Second amendment rights.
Instead, this Committee has been taken over with
impeachment fever.
Madam Chair, if you have to investigate something, if your
fever just won't break, maybe you could bring Inspector General
Horowitz from the Justice Department to discuss the actions of
the FBI, CIA, and special Counsel. Maybe you could do more than
take a shallow look at the deep state.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views with the
Committee.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you to the gentleman from Montana.
We will now hear from the gentleman from California, Mr.
Takano.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK TAKANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Takano. Chair Scanlon, Mr. Cline, Mr. Collins, and the
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. I am a little confused by the change of name
plates.
I am here to discuss the deportation of noncitizen military
veterans. Every day these brave servicemembers risk their lives
in service to our country. Their sacrifice should be honored.
In June, the Government Accountability Office, the GAO,
released a report at the request of my office and Congressman
Juan Vargas to determine the scope of servicemember and veteran
deportations. I was deeply alarmed by the findings in the
report which shed light on a systemic failure within the
Department of Homeland Security to identify and track
information on potentially removable veterans.
I was equally troubled to discover that while Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, ICE, has certain policies in place to
track these veterans, ICE routinely failed to adhere to those
policies.
This breakdown has directly resulted in the deportation of
veterans who have proudly served our Nation.
I must depart from my script. Many Americans do not believe
that our Nation is deporting men and women who have worn the
cloth of our Nation. It is true. It has been done. There are
many veterans that are living outside of our country who have
been deported.
These veterans have dutifully served us, and as a country,
we need to fix this grave injustice. Congress has an important
role to play in making sure all veterans have access to the
benefits they rightfully earned and providing a clear path
forward to citizenship for those who dream of becoming
citizens. Regardless of where they were born, these veterans
have taken an oath to fight and protect this country, and they
have proven themselves time after time.
We must not waste another day. Our veterans need help, and
they need it now. Steps must be taken to ensure our veterans do
not fall through the cracks of a broken immigration system.
I, along with some of my House colleagues, will be
presenting a comprehensive package to address the significant
and unique challenges our noncitizen veterans face. A
comprehensive package would include several provisions that
strike at the heart of some of the fundamental root causes of
these deportations.
It will be important for this Chamber and this Committee to
consider an approach that will take an inventory of all
veterans who have been deported from the United States,
establish clear protocols to identify and track potential
veterans who may be subjected to immigration proceedings and
face the specter of deportation, and establish a process to
ensure that veterans moving through the judicial system stand a
fair chance of being recognized for their service.
A common misconception about veterans is that they are
reliably self-identify and announce their veteran status while
facing deportation proceedings, though we know that this is
simply not true. Under a fair and just system, the totality of
a noncitizen veteran's service history would be presented
before a judge during any deportation proceedings. However,
this is rarely true today.
It is my view that no veteran should be deported without a
considerable review of their case and their service to our
country. Those who have already been forcibly removed should be
given a fair chance to return to the country they love as
naturalized citizens.
Our government is failing our noncitizen veterans, and we
must do better as a Nation. I urge this Committee to take
seriously the issue of deported veterans and urge your utmost
consideration once a comprehensive legislative package is
brought before this committee.
Thank you, and I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Takano follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Representative Takano.
Next, we will hear from the gentleman from Washington, Mr.
Newhouse.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAN NEWHOUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Newhouse. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair Scanlon
and Mr. Cline. I appreciate the opportunity to testify in front
of the House Judiciary Committee this morning.
I have come to speak on a crisis that affects communities
across our Nation, the crisis of missing and murdered
indigenous women. Native women throughout the country face a
murder rate 10 times higher than the national average with 84
percent experiencing some kind of violence in their lifetimes.
In my home State of Washington, Native Americans make up
about 2 percent of the population. A recent survey by the
Washington State Patrol shows that indigenous women account for
7 percent of the State's reported missing women. Unlike other
crimes, this problem affects communities in both highly
populated urban areas as well as rural areas.
My congressional district sits at the epicenter of this
crisis in the State of Washington. There are currently 31 open
MMIW cases on or near the Yakima Nation in central Washington,
including seven cases in just the last 5 years. This is in
addition to 71 open cases in the greater Seattle metropolitan
area.
Not only is the sheer number of open cases alarming, but
the lack of resources and tools law enforcement agencies have
to combat this problem is staggering. The complicated
jurisdiction between Federal and Tribal and local law
enforcement has caused serious issues throughout many
investigations, and the families and communities of these
victims are left without answers.
I can sit here and continue to spout the heartbreaking
statistics or share gruesome details about the women who have
gone missing or whose bodies have been found across the
country, but the truth is we don't even have the accurate data
to truly understand the breadth of this problem.
To truly understand their stories, it is best to hear
directly from the communities that are affected. Our community
in central Washington has not been silent. Citizens of the
Yakima Nation and other local Tribes have hosted rallies and
forums to raise awareness of this crisis and demand action.
One of our local newspapers, the Yakima-Herald Republic,
has digitally highlighted the response and activism on the
ground, providing resources for families and friends of missing
Native women.
I am here today in part to draw attention to the request I
have made to this Committee to host a field hearing in central
Washington to discuss solutions to the MMIW crisis. My written
request was delivered in June and has been echoed in letters
from numerous Tribes, advocacy groups, and women's
organizations, yet we have yet to receive a response. This
Committee has held 26 hearings since those letters began
arriving on your desks, but we have not been acknowledged.
I would ask unanimous consent to submit for the record
copies of the letters my request, as well as letters from the
Yakima Nation, the Colville Nation, the Puyallup Nation, the
Samish Indian Nation, the Muckleshoot Tribe, the Nez Perce
Tribe, the Washington State Women's Commission, the YWCA, as
well as the Missing and Murdered Native Americans.
Ms. Scanlon. Those will be received, without objection.
[The information follows:]
MR. NEWHOUSE FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you very much.
A field hearing will provide the Members of the Committee
the opportunity to hear firsthand from the Tribes, local law
enforcement agencies, community Members, and families who are
dealing with this crisis every day. A visit to the Yakima
Nation would help demonstrate the impact this crisis is having
on our communities in central Washington and around the
country. I sincerely hope you will consider accepting my
invitation.
Thankfully, the current Administration has been actively
pursuing this local input. The Department of Interior is
conducting a series of roundtable events with Tribes and local
law enforcement agencies across the country, most recently in
Arizona and Alaska.
While the DOI and the Bureau of Indian Affairs certainly
have a role to play here, it is Congress who must pay attention
and do our part.
I have worked with colleagues, including Norma Torres and
Deb Haaland, as well as others, on proposals that would provide
immediate assistance. For instance, Savannah's Act and the
BADGES for Native Communities Act would develop guidelines and
best practices to enhance the reporting and record keeping of
crimes against indigenous women, improve communication between
law enforcement and families of victims, and provide resources
to Tribal law enforcement to recruit, retain, and train
officers to better investigate these crimes.
There is strong bipartisan support for both bills which
have been referred to your committee. My colleagues and I stand
ready to develop solutions that will work for local Tribal
communities and law enforcement. I hope the Members of the
Committee will join us in listening to the desperate pleas of
these communities in seeking comprehensive solutions and
bringing justice on behalf of these women and these families.
I thank you for your attention.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you very much.
I will now hear from the gentlelady from Missouri, Ms.
Hartzler.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. VICKY HARTZLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Ms. Hartzler. Thank you, Madam Chair, Representative Cline,
and distinguished Members of this Committee. So, thank you for
giving me this opportunity to address you today.
Today I would like to discuss three of my top priorities:
School safety, border security, and combating sex trafficking.
These three issues impact every one of our communities. That is
why I introduced three bills to offer solutions to these
challenges.
The first bill I want to highlight is H.R. 1501, the Police
Officers Protecting Children Act. This bill will give school
districts the flexibility to allow off-duty law enforcement
officers and qualified retired officers to carry a concealed
firearm on school grounds.
This issue came to my attention when one of my
constituents, a 30-year retired veteran police officer, found
that Federal law prohibited him from volunteering to protect
his grandchildren while he visited their school.
My bill does not require schools to make any changes, but
simply removes a Federal barrier and allows school districts to
decide for themselves if they want to allow otherwise qualified
law enforcement officers the ability to protect our children on
school property.
For too long, we have witnessed countless and gut-wrenching
acts of violence in our schools, and we have mourned, grieved,
and called for action. We can no longer afford to stand by and
call for action without engaging and offering solutions. That
is why I introduced this important piece of legislation.
The next bill I would like to discuss is H.R. 3968, the
Eradicate Crossing of Illegal Tunnels or EXIT Act.
Last year, I visited the southern border and spoke directly
with Customs and Border Patrol agents in Nogales, Arizona. The
lengthy and burdensome process of filling illegal tunnels that
cross the border and facilitate the flow of illegal narcotics
into our country was a top concern.
An agent explained that once a tunnel was found, it could
take months to get through the environmental reviews and bid
contracting process necessary to allow a crew to begin filling
in a cross-border tunnel. For example, a tunnel was found in
the Rio Grande Valley in January of this year and was not
filled until nearly 4 months later.
We should not allow bureaucratic red tape to get in the way
of dealing with matters of national security, such as filling
illegal drug tunnels. My bill expedites the approval process
that CBP agents must undergo to destroy tunnels at the border.
It allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive Federal,
State, and local environmental permits and reviews, expedites
the contracting process, and clarifies that CBP and ICE have
the authority to search for and remediate unlawful cross-border
tunnels while patrolling the border.
This bill is a commonsense fix that will save time and
resources while also helping to prevent illegal drugs from
entering our country.
Finally, I have reintroduced the Empowering Law Enforcement
to Fight Sex Trafficking Demand Act, a bipartisan bill that
passed this House by voice vote last Congress. My bill, H.R.
1110, supports law enforcement agencies in their efforts to
expand and develop sex trafficking demand reduction programs by
enabling new funding through the Edward Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant Programs or Byrne JAG program.
Since 2007, the National Human Trafficking Hotline has
reported 51,919 sex trafficking cases in the United States,
underscoring the harsh reality that sex trafficking has roots
in thousands of our neighborhoods and cities across our
country.
According to leading researchers and law enforcement
agencies, a primary cause of the growing number of sex
trafficking cases is consumer-level demand. Despite the
increase and influence of consumer demand, law enforcement is
not being equipped with the proper funding to create or expand
demand reduction programs that would put these sex trafficking
buyers behind bars.
By expanding the Byrne JAG program, we can provide our
State and local law enforcement agencies more flexibility in
balancing their resources to combat sex trafficking. We, as
Members of Congress, must shed light on this horrendous
epidemic and provide our law enforcement agencies with the
adequate resources to attack the sex trafficking industry at
its source.
I ask my colleagues to support all three of these crucial
efforts, and I thank you for allowing me this time. I yield
back.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you very much.
Next, the Committee will hear from the gentleman from Iowa,
Mr. King.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEVE KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF IOWA
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member. I
appreciate the opportunity to address a number of bills that I
would like to see move before this United States Congress, and
I will try to get through about four of them in these 5
minutes.
The first would be the Heartbeat Protection Act, which made
a lot of progress in the last Congress, up to 172 cosponsors--
excuse me, 174 cosponsors--and it had all the votes in this
Committee to pass out of Committee without amendment, and it
had the votes on the floor.
There was a decision, I think made higher up, not to allow
that bill to move forward, which I deeply regret, but the
progress that we made in this Congress and the previous
Congress did seem to launch or trigger an epidemic of heartbeat
bills across the country. At the heart of these heartbeat bills
is the idea that once a heartbeat can be detected, the baby is
protected.
So, that swept through this Congress almost to the point of
sending a bill over to the Senate, but also the States, there
are at least 10 States that have passed some version of that, a
couple of them before then, a number of them since then,
including Iowa, and now we have 25 of the 50 States that have
either passed heartbeat legislation or taken action on it.
This is a movement in America, and I would like to see this
Congress step up to it and get ahead of it instead of
following. I want to see a national legislation so that there
is a standard policy for all America just like there is for
marriage, only I would like to see it done by the legislature
rather than the judicial branch of government, and I think
everybody on this Committee would think the same thing with
regard to legislation rather than judicial action on large
policies.
The second topic I would like to take up is some
immigration legislation. One of them is my bill H.R. 140, the
Birthright Citizenship Act. It is legislation that I have
authored here in this Congress for a number of sessions, and it
recognizes this: That there are between--this is according to
an old study, more than 10 years old. We had testimony before
this Committee in this room that there were between 340,000 and
750,000 babies born in this country when both parents are
unlawfully present in America.
That is called birthright citizenship. It has spawned birth
tourism. At that time, the turnkey cost of, say, a pregnant
woman from China could fly to the United States, stay here,
have the baby, receive all the medical care, and be housed for
a period of time, fly back to China with a birth certificate
for that child for a turnkey price of $30,000.
That price has gone up a little bit since then, I
understand, but we also have a number of these automatic
citizenships taking place, automatic births taking place. We
know there are people that just come to America to have a baby
so that that baby can be a citizen, and then 18 years later the
process begins to do the Family Reunification Act.
It is happening with families out of the Middle East that
are sometimes of suspicious history as to whether they favor
the United States or work against us.
So, that is an important piece of legislation. I recognize
the 14th amendment of the Constitution says that all persons
born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof are American citizens. This Congress needs to evaluate
that clause, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and the
scholarship that has testified in this room has sided with me
on this in that that means owing allegiance too. So, that is
where you start this, and I think it needs to happen here.
Second immigration piece is the New IDEA Act. That is H.R.
904. I named it that because there are no new ideas in this
Congress. I was a little bit--I guess I thought I would just
test that out. It does come together. IDEA, the acronym stands
for the Illegal Deduction Elimination Act, and it clarifies
that wages and benefits paid to illegals are not tax deductible
for Federal income tax purposes. Then it denies those wages and
benefits as a business expense to the employer.
So, it is a powerful deterrent, and it moves those dollars
from a Schedule C expense back over into the gross receipts
column where they show up as net income, taxable interest, and
penalty.
It brings the IRS into the immigration enforcement process,
and it ties together the Social Security Administration and the
Department of Homeland Security. So, the right-, left-, and
middle-hand of government all know what each other is doing,
and they are working on a common cause.
It also makes E-Verify permanent but not mandatory, and it
does give safe harbor for the employers who use E-Verify.
So, this is a smart, costless, effective immigration
enforcement.
Then in seconds, I will say H.R. 2260, the E-bonding for
Immigration Integrity Act. The President is working on this
through executive action. I brought this to him, he agreed. We
can apply bonding to people coming in here on visas. With that,
the bonding can bring about enforcement and encourage them to
go back home.
I conclude my remarks and appreciate the opportunity to
testify before this Committee.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, sir.
We will now hear from the gentlewoman from New Mexico,
Representative Haaland.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEBRA A. HAALAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Ms. Haaland. Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank you for this
opportunity to share some key priorities that impact the lives
of New Mexicans.
I proudly hail from a majority minority State where nearly
half the population is Hispanic. That is why I urge this
Committee to consider H.R. 2729, the Protect Immigration Act of
2019.
This bill discontinues the 287(g) program that authorizes
State and local law enforcement to collaborate with U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement in investigating,
apprehending, and detaining undocumented people. This bill
clarifies immigration enforcement is solely a function of the
Federal Government, as it truly is.
Collaboration between ICE and State and local law
enforcement can destroy trust among an entire community. Across
the Nation, people don't call law enforcement in emergency
situations or seek justice in the court for fear of being
profiled, deported, or detained. This is unacceptable and
doesn't serve or protect our communities.
Many times, such people are disadvantaged and are not
criminals. They are individuals who may make simple mistakes,
like the undocumented woman living in my district since 2000
who went to court for a speeding ticket. Instead of being able
to present her case and pay her fine, she was arrested by ICE.
Our community should know they can safely call the police,
seek justice as a victim, or pay a simple speeding fine. Sowing
fear and distrust between communities and law enforcement makes
everyone less safe, and that is what happens when we ask local
law enforcement to do ICE's job. We cannot place the safety of
our communities at risk due to distrust in law enforcement and
in our justice system.
As Co-chair of the Native American Caucus and one of the
first Native American women elected to Congress, one of my top
priorities is to address the epidemic of missing and murdered
indigenous women. I want to thank this Committee for supporting
my two amendments to VAWA to expand the Tribal Access Program
database and to provide victim advocate services to urban
Indians.
While this was an important step, homicide continues to be
the leading cause of death for Native women between ages 10-24
years old. Tragically, Native women experience murder rates 10
times that of the national average.
That is why I urge you to Act on the Not Invisible Act,
which is the first bill in history to be introduced by all four
congressional Members of Federally recognized tribes.
This bill will establish an advisory Committee to the
Departments of Justice and Interior on violent crime comprised
of law enforcement, Tribal leaders, Federal partners, service
providers, and survivors.
It would also create best practices for combating the
epidemic of missing persons, murder, and trafficking of Native
Americans and Alaskan Natives and would create a position for
an expert within the Bureau of Indian Affairs charged with
improving coordination of violent crime prevention efforts
across Federal agencies.
Congress must also address the barriers that stand in the
way of efficient law enforcement agency data sharing and
officer recruitment and retention, both of which are imperative
to address the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women.
I also urge this Committee to move my BADGES Act, which
will increase the effectiveness of Federal missing persons
resources and gives Tribes and States the funding to coordinate
response efforts.
These bills are important steps to moving toward combating
the overwhelming number of domestic violence and gender-based
crimes in Indian Country and will move Tribes closer to true
self-governance.
Thank you so much for hearing me, and I look forward to
working with you to ensure that people from all communities
feel safe and free from violence, and I yield.
[The statement of Ms. Haaland follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Representative Haaland.
Next, we will hear from Mr. Malinowski, the Representative
from New Jersey.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM MALINOWSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify before
you on behalf of the Seventh District in New Jersey. I am here
today to address just one issue: The rising threat of White
supremacist terrorism.
Over the past several years, our country has done an
extremely good job protecting ourselves against terrorism
committed by groups outside the United States like al-Qaida and
ISIS. We have not done nearly as well preventing attacks by
people who have been radicalized by a neo-Nazi and White
supremacist movement that has its origins within the United
States that is becoming increasingly transnational.
FBI Director Wray has told us that most of the Bureau's
terrorism arrests in the U.S. now involve some form of White
supremacy. According to the Anti-Defamation League, virtually
every deadly terrorist attack in the United States in the last
2 years was committed by a member of this movement. It is a
movement united by a common belief that immigration is causing
the so-called replacement of the White race and by
determination to create chaos and conflict by attacking Jews,
Muslims, Hispanics, and members of other religious and ethnic
minority groups.
The threat and the ideology inspiring it is absolutely
clear from the deadly attacks in El Paso, in Charleston, in
Pittsburgh. In each case, as well as in the horrible terrorist
attack committed in Christchurch, New Zealand, the attacker
cited exactly the same fear of invasion by immigrants.
It is pretty plain these people are becoming emboldened
today. We see this in the crackpot conspiracy theories that are
spreading virally on the internet. We see it in swastikas
suddenly appearing on the walls of schools. We have had six
such incidents in just one town in my district, Summit, New
Jersey, in the past year.
We know it is not just about actual loss of life, as bad as
that is. It is about the daily fear of loss of life. In my
district, virtually every single synagogue and Jewish community
center either has armed security or is wrestling with the
question of whether to have it. State police come to mosque for
Friday prayers.
Now, there are actions we have to take in response to this
that fall outside the purview of the Judiciary Committee. I
will be leading an effort to try to restore funding for
programs at the Department of Homeland Security that combat
violent extremism in the United States that were cut a couple
of years ago. Many of us are pressing social media companies to
do more to combat online radicalization and pressing the State
Department to designate foreign White supremacist groups as
terrorist organizations.
As busy as the Judiciary Committee is these days--and I
know you are busy--I think it is imperative that this Committee
do its part.
There is currently legislation pending in the House and
Senate that would strengthen our government's ability to defeat
domestic terrorism. This includes the Domestic Terrorism
Prevention Act, of which I am original cosponsor, which would
beef up the Justice Department units responsible for addressing
this threat and improve data collection.
There is the DATA Act and the NO HATE Act. We also need to
consider the difficult question of whether we should pass a
domestic counterterrorism statute. While it is true that acts
of mass murder are committed by White supremacists, like hate
crimes can be prosecuted as ordinary crimes, I think there is a
strong argument for enabling the Justice Department to
prosecute these people for what they are, terrorists, and thus
signaling that this effort must be a greater priority in terms
of protection of our country.
It is also important for this Committee to continue to hold
hearings and to conduct its basic oversight work to ensure that
the FBI and DOJ pay sufficient attention to this threat and
that they know we will have their back when they do. We will
provide the resources and the authorities that they need.
Madam Chair, it is far past time that our country starts
taking the threat posed by White supremacist terrorism as
seriously and as urgently as we have rightly taken the threat
posed by terrorist groups based outside the United States.
There is not a moment to be lost.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Malinowski follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you very much.
We will now hear from the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Quigley.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE QUIGLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Quigley. I want to thank the Chair and the Ranking
Member, and the Committee for allowing me to speak today.
I hope you will strongly consider and pass two of the bills
I currently referred to this committee. The first is H.R. 1671,
the NICS Denial Notification Act, which will help State law
enforcement better enforce existing gun laws and respond to
warning signs of criminal behavior. Keeping dangerous weapons
out of the hands of dangerous people is a nonnegotiable
priority for my constituents.
Every year in Chicago, nearly 700 children are victims of
gun violence. Sixty-six of these children die as a result of
injuries sustained from bullets. Across America, 89 people are
killed daily. Seven of these 89 are children. Every day,
mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles,
grandparents, and friends, learn that a loved one has been
killed by a bullet.
Over the past decade, we have seen mass shooting after mass
shooting. In fact, just this summer, in the span of less than
13 hours, two communities in our country were faced with the
tragedy of a mass shooting. Thirty-two lives were cut short by
gun violence in less than a day. We can do something about
this.
On August 31, Midland, Texas, suffered another senseless
and tragic mass shooting. As you may know, the perpetrator of
that incident failed a background check in 2014 when he
attempted to purchase a gun. He later purchased a firearm
through a private sale.
Taking action to prevent that scenario from ever happening
again is why I have come here today. My bill, the NICS Denial
Notification Act, is one of the few bipartisan gun safety bills
in Congress and would help State law enforcement better enforce
existing gun laws by establishing an alert system to notify
them when individuals legally prohibited from purchasing a
firearm attempt to do so.
In 37 States and the District of Columbia, which rely on
the FBI to run some or all their background checks, State
authorities are generally not aware when prohibited persons
fail background checks run by the FBI. As a result, these
States and DC lack critical law enforcement intelligence that
they could use to try to keep their communities safe by
automatically notifying State and local law enforcement when a
prohibited individual attempts to acquire a gun. We can help
law enforcement intercept a dangerous person before they
acquire a weapon and commit a violent crime. Had this been the
law, there is a chance that the horrific mass shooting in
Midland may never have occurred.
On a much different note, I also want to use this time to
discuss my bipartisan JOLT Act. H.R. 2187, the Jobs Originating
Through Launching Travel Act, is aptly named, as it is designed
to give a jolt to the U.S. economy by improving inbound travel
to the U.S. while simultaneously improving our national
security.
Travel and tourism are crucially important in a district
like mine in Chicago but also all over the U.S. Cities, towns,
big and small, benefit from a robust travel and tourism
industry. The impacts are felt in food service, lodging,
transportation, retail, amusement, and recreation activities.
Our Nation's number one service export, tourism, generates
2.5 trillion in economic activity every year, with nearly 200
billion in spending coming from visa-free travelers alone. Of
course, our ports of entry must be fortified and the
infrastructure improved to meet the needs and the unique
security challenges international travelers pose.
The JOLT Act deals with these issues and opportunities,
directly providing for a safer, more prosperous country. It
encourages Canadian tourism to the U.S. by increasing the
length of stay for Canadian visitors from 180-240 days.
Second, the bill importantly renames the Visa Waiver
Program to a more appropriate Security Travel Partnership
Program. This name change is more than just branding. It more
accurately reflects the mission and security parameters
required for qualified countries to participate. This includes
maintaining high import security standards, supporting
operation for an effective Air Marshal program, and cooperating
with the U.S. to fight terrorism by sharing terrorists' next
threat.
The bill also makes visa processing more efficient, setting
a goal for 15 days for reviews on nonimmigrant visas. Finally,
the bill contains reporting requirements for DHS to share with
Congress on how many people visited the U.S. under this travel
program.
Simply put, we should do everything we can to expand and
strengthen this successful program, and I thank you for the
opportunity to speak with you today.
[The statement of Mr. Quigley follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you very much.
Next, the chair recognizes the gentleman from northern New
York, Mr. Katko.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN KATKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Katko. Good morning. I would like to begin by thanking
the Committee for the opportunity to speak today on H.R. 3657,
the Bill's Promise Act.
I was proud to introduce H.R. 3657 earlier this Congress
with Representative Hank Johnson of Georgia, and I am pleased
that the legislation has already received strong bipartisan
support from the Committee, including from Ranking Member
Collins and Representatives on both sides of the aisle,
including Members of Congress Roby, Swalwell, Cline,
Sensenbrenner, Dean, Chabot, Buck, and, hopefully soon, Ms.
Scanlon.
As a former Federal prosecutor, and one for 20 years, I
routinely dealt with pretrial release matters, and they are an
important tool for judges, an important tool for prosecutors,
important tool for the system to ensure that only those that
truly deserve to be incarcerated pending trial are incarcerated
pending trial.
When properly administered, the programs help to address
the significant resource and capacity restrictions facing our
courts. Unfortunately, failures in this system can jeopardize
availability of pretrial release services and threaten the
safety of victims, the accused, and the men and women who
administer these services.
The community that I represent in central New York, knows
these consequences all too well. I want to delve into the facts
of a particular case to illustrate my point.
In 2013, I was a Federal prosecutor in Syracuse, New York,
and one day we received horrific news. Somebody that was
charged with possessing child pornography and who was on
pretrial release, justifiably so, most likely, because he had
no priors, kidnapped a woman and a 10-year-old girl, her
daughter, repeatedly raped the girl in front of the mother and
then murdered the mother.
As subsequent facts evolved, it was determined that this
individual, while on pretrial release and on electronic
monitoring, had tampered with his bracelet 46 times before
getting out--before actually committing the crime. What was
learned was that 46 alarms went to the company, 46 alarms went
to probation, and those alarms were largely ignored as an
anomaly. He knew this, the defendant, and he eventually took
the bracelet off and went and committed the horrific crime that
he committed.
What I found out subsequently was this was not an isolated
incident. I have spoken to Members on both sides of the aisle
all throughout Congress, Sheila Jackson Lee, for example, and
many others, who have encountered similar things in their
district, stories so ridiculous as electronic monitoring not
being monitored
24/7, closing down at 9 o'clock at night and then starting up
at 9 o'clock in the morning. One individual knew that, and
after 9 o'clock at night, he went out and murdered somebody.
There are facts like this all over--and I will spare you some
of the gory details.
What this bill tries to do is to address this, not by
denigrating pretrial release, but by trying to enhance it, by
doing appropriate things. By the way, the bill is named for
Bill's Promise, because the individual who came upon this
horrific scene and held this woman in his arms as she died made
a promise to her that he would make sure it never happened
again, and he has made it his lifework.
So, while these circumstances I described in this one case
were extreme, they certainly are not isolated, and further
oversight is needed to ensure that they are never allowed to
occur again.
A recent analysis by the Pew Charitable Trust found a 140-
percent increase in the use of electronic monitoring devices
nationwide over a 10-year period. As this and other
technologies are deployed to improve the Administration of
pretrial release programs, Congress must take action to promote
accountability, maintain the integrity of our pretrial release
system.
The Bill's Promise Act represents a critical step in this
process. The legislation would authorize a comprehensive study
on the Administration of pretrial release services, with a
specific focus on monitoring practices for individuals on
pretrial release.
Critically, this legislation would also examine resource
and capacity issues impacting the Administration of pretrial
release services and call for recommendations to ensure their
continued availability.
Having received endorsements from the National Alliance to
End Sexual Violence, the Fraternal Order of Police, the
National Sheriffs' Association, to name a few, I ask that the
Committee strongly consider taking up this legislation.
On a final note, I want to highlight the advocacy of Bill
Cregg, the gentleman I described. He is a steadfast advocate
for safety in the central New York community and his advocacy
has made this legislation possible. He was the first person on
the scene, as I said, after this horrific event that occurred
in 2013. This experience motivated Bill to make a promise that
senseless and preventable acts of violence like those he
witnessed would never be incurred again. I am here today asking
you, all of you, to help him keep that promise.
Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you very much.
We will next hear from the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
Stivers.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEVE STIVERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Stivers. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you on
intellectual property reforms today.
Our Founding Fathers knew that our Nation's economic
success would be hard work--would thrive with the hard work of
American inventors and their ideas. That is why in the
Constitution, article I, section 8, they gave Congress the
power to promote the progress of science and the useful arts,
which has been considered the gold standard in the patent
system around the world.
Unfortunately, in recent years, some of our unintended
consequences from laws and judicial decisions have threatened
our status as the leader in innovation. Congress passed the
America Invents Act, which promised a faster, fairer, and
cheaper method of challenging the validity of patents that have
been granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It
created the Patent Trial Appeal Board, PTAB, and I support the
PTAB.
Unfortunately, what has happened, because the standards
that the PTAB are lower than the standards in the court, is we
have tipped the scales in favor of those who have the deepest
pockets instead of those who have the best ideas. Innovators
have always thrived in trying to take down the Goliath of the
day with their new slingshot, but the current system denies
that opportunity to some because they might not be deep
pockets.
That is why, along with Congressman Bill Foster, Tom
McClintock, Nydia Velazquez, we have introduced the bipartisan
Stronger Patents Act. This legislation seeks to help Congress
keep its original promise in the America Invents Acts and
create a cheaper, faster, fairer process in the Patent Trial
and Appeal Board.
It ensures that the PTAB uses the same standards of
construction as the Federal court system. That seems pretty
simple. Because the standards are different and you get more
protections at the court system, everything from the PTAB ends
up getting appealed. When you appeal everything, it costs more
money, it takes longer, and deeper pockets win more often.
That contradiction and uncertainty has eroded the
confidence in our system. Thankfully, the Director of the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office, Director Iancu, has implemented
the harmonization of claim construction through a rulemaking
process, but that is temporary, and we need to enshrine it in
law. The Stronger Patent Act does just that. I think it is
really important.
The second thing the Stronger Patent Act does is it
restores injunctive relief. If you are stealing my personal
property, I can stop you. If you are stealing my intellectual
property today, I might not be able to stop you because I can't
get injunctive relief. Again, this just leads things toward the
deeper pockets.
In fact, there is a new term out there inside intellectual
property, and that term is that they are going to try to take
your property until you stop them. It is called efficient
infringement. It is only efficient because we don't have
injunctions. We need to bring back injunctions and restore the
property rights that are enshrined in the Constitution again.
This Committee has an opportunity to discuss and debate
these PTO reforms, and I look forward to working with you as we
do that. We can restore our Patent and Trademark Office to a
place that is the gold standard for the world.
Another thing that the Committee I hope will consider over
time is the patent eligibility sections that haven't been
updated since 1952, long before jets, artificial intelligence,
mapping of the human genome, even the fax machine, were not
thought of in 1952.
This absence of Congressional action since 1952 has allowed
the courts to set policy on what can and cannot get a patent.
So, we need to take a serious look at that, and I hope you will
look at that as well. There are some things being discussed and
worked on with Senator Thom Tillis, Chris Coons, Chris Collins,
Hank Johnson, and I, around patent eligibility to help clarify
it. I hope you will take some time to look at it.
Think back to 1952. The three of us probably weren't born
in 1952. You don't look like you were. So, think about how long
ago that was. Half the pictures in this room weren't up in
1952. That was two generations ago. So, we do need to look at
patent eligibility, but I hope you will take a serious look at
the Stronger Patents Act because it is really important because
it will help keep our economy competitive into the future.
I want to thank the Committee for this opportunity. I am
happy to answer any questions and look forward to working with
you on intellectual property reforms.
[The statement of Mr. Stivers follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you very much.
Next, the Committee will hear from Mr. Marshall from
Kansas.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROGER W. MARSHALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS
Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member.
Good morning.
The Second amendment is a fundamental right enshrined in
our Constitution. As a lifelong sportsman and gun owner, I
remain committed to seeing that it is not infringed upon and
will strongly oppose any legislation that would attempt to
strip that right away from law-abiding citizens.
Americans have a right to protect themselves and those
close to them. I cannot imagine living in rural Kansas, where a
sheriff's officer is often 60 miles away, without my God-given,
constitutionally guaranteed right to protect myself and my
family.
Last week, this Committee advanced several anti-Second
amendment bills, including one on proposed red flag laws that
would allow private citizens to request court orders for
officials to confiscate people's legally obtained and
constitutionally protected firearms.
Proponents of this type of legislation say they would stop
potential mass shootings before they occur, but red flag laws
actually result in law-abiding citizens losing their ability to
defend their families, all while losing their right to due
process. These laws are too vague and will be abused beyond the
stated purposes of the legislation by those who want to see a
disarmed America.
We, all of us, every Member of Congress, we took an oath to
defend and uphold the United States Constitution. I will
continue fighting against unconstitutional gun grabs by those
who wish to abolish the Second Amendment.
Madam Chair, Ranking Member, last week, I took part in a
hearing on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,
which would protect babies born alive following an attempted
abortion. I am appalled that the vote on this bill has been
blocked 80 times now--80 times--by House leadership.
As an obstetrician who has delivered over 5,000 babies in
Kansas, I never thought I would be fighting harder to save
babies lives in the halls of Congress than in the delivery
room. I am calling on this Committee to hold a hearing on this
legislation and advance the bill to the floor for consideration
by the Full House.
Kansans and pro-life Americans everywhere are demanding it.
This shouldn't be complicated. This shouldn't be controversial.
This is commonsense legislation. The fact that this can't get a
vote should make all of us hang our heads in shame.
Madam Chair, Ranking Member, perhaps the biggest complaints
I hear when I head back home and do townhalls about Congress
tend to come from the actions, or really the lack of actions,
from this Committee, the financial waste, the waste of time,
the petty politics that comes from this room more often than
anywhere else on the hill. We have known for months that there
was no collusion. We also know that there are key issues that
Congress must address on behalf of the American people, like
the USMCA NAFTA 2.0 trade agreement. We need to secure our
borders. We need an infrastructure package. Those are just to
name a few that the American public want done.
Unfortunately, those of us up here on in far left would
rather waste everyone's time and money, their tax dollars, with
these senseless hearings about investigations. In all, more
than half of all the Democrats in this chamber now support
moving forward on impeachment and continue to ignore calls from
the public to focus on more pressing matters, such as, again,
bringing trade deals to the floor to help our Nation's farmers
and ranchers as well as our manufacturers.
There can be no denial that the majority of this
Committee's sole agenda item is to buck the will of the
American people and continue their attempts to impeach the
President. Let's get on with the business of governing.
Elections do matter. We are all learning that. We will get
another chance in just a year. I am asking that we commit today
that, until that election, we actually get something done for
the American people and not just work to make another made-for-
TV soundbite.
Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I will just note that votes have
been called, there are 11 minutes remaining, so this will be
the last Witness.
With that, the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Roe.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVID P. ROE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mr. Roe. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Too often, as Americans, we tend to take our freedom for
granted, but we should never forget that we owe our freedom to
our Nation's veterans. That is why it is so egregious that many
veterans come home to find that they have to do battle with the
VA, the very agency that is supposed to help and support them,
to protect their own constitutional rights.
The problem occurs when VA, for whatever reason, determines
that a veteran needs assistance managing his or her VA
financial benefits and decides to appoint a fiduciary. Now,
there are many reasons why a veteran might need a fiduciary,
such as a veteran who maybe had a TBI injury and has difficulty
with math and struggles to balance his or her checkbook.
Unfortunately, there are serious unintended consequences
when VA appoints a fiduciary. This is because, once VA decides
that the beneficiary needs help with finances, even though
there may be no evidence that the individual may be a danger to
himself or others, the Department Sends the Veteran's Name to
the FBI, Added to the NICS list.
I want to be clear, any individual who a court rules are a
threat to themselves or others should not be permitted to
possess a firearm. However, there is no evidence that those who
need a fiduciary are a danger to society. It is important to
remember that a VA bureaucrat makes this decision, not a judge.
Unfortunately, VA's decision has serious consequences for
veterans, including losing his or her Second amendment rights.
This means that the veteran can't go hunting, can't shoot at a
target range, or even keep a firearm that has been in the
family for generations.
I am also concerned because some recreational therapy
programs, like the one at the VA Grand Junction Medical Center
in Colorado, have found that hunting trips can be therapeutic
for veterans with physical and psychological disabilities.
Right now, there are probably veterans who could be helped by
these programs but can't participate just because a VA
bureaucrat appointed a fiduciary for them.
Moreover, I am troubled that I have heard from veterans
that they do not seek care or benefits from VA because they
fear that, if they do, they will lose their Second amendment
rights.
Just this week, I worked with one of our colleagues to
assist a constituent who was so worried about the impact of
VA's proposed fiduciary finding, that he stated he would rather
give up his VA benefits than lose his firearms.
Barring law-abiding veterans from owning a weapon will not
make our communities safer. If anything, it will discourage the
veterans who protected our country from receiving the benefits
that they have earned.
I have a bill, H.R. 3826, which would prohibit VA from
sending veterans' names to the NICS list, unless there is an
order from a judge or magistrate that says the person may harm
themselves or others.
In 2017, this bill passed the House with bipartisan
support. I know we don't always see eye to eye, but we should
all agree that veterans who are willing to lay down their lives
to protect freedom shouldn't have their own freedoms taken away
without appropriate due process.
I urge the Members to support and cosponsor my bill, 3826,
and hope you will recommend to the VA Committee Chair Takano to
advance the bill.
I would also like to take the opportunity to renew my
concerns with House-passed language in H.R. 1112. If H.R. 1112
were enacted, it could expand the list of individuals who
cannot possess a firearm to include 1.7 million veterans with
an adjudication of service connection for a mental health
condition. I hope we can all agree that a VA bureaucrat
granting a compensation claim for PTSD or depression in no way
equates to a judicial ruling that a veteran is a danger to
society. I raised these concerns in February when H.R. 1112 was
being debated on the House floor.
I am also grateful the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
United States brought this issue to judiciary Chair Nadler's
attention. As a result, he committed to ensuring that as H.R.
1112 proceeds, it will not negatively impact disabled veterans.
Today, I would like to ask Chair Nadler to reaffirm the
commitment he made on the House floor and request that he
provide me with an update on his progress addressing this
matter.
As the Chair of the Committee, I have traveled across this
country talking to veterans. One of the concerns, Madam Chair,
that I have is that--veterans from Long Island to Los Angeles
have told me this--they are concerned that, if they have mental
health treatment at the VA, that their weapons will be taken
away.
I would encourage this Committee to take this up, and I
yield back my time. Thank you for the opportunity to be here.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you very much for your testimony.
This concludes today's hearing. We thank all our Witnesses
for participating and discussing important views regarding
immigration, criminal justice, gun safety, et cetera.
Without objection, all the Members will have 5 legislative
days to submit additional materials for the record.
Without objection, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:32 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]