    [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]