[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]