Subscribe: Congressman Jerrold Nadler - Representing the 8th District of New York
http://nadler.house.gov/rss.xml
Preview: Congressman Jerrold Nadler - Representing the 8th District of New York

Congressman Jerrold Nadler - Representing the 10th District of New York





 



Nadler, Maloney & King Slam Mulvaney Proposal to Change Oversight of 9/11 Health Program

Sun, 18 Feb 2018 22:00:00 +0000

NEW YORK, NY – Today, Representatives Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and Peter King (R-NY), original sponsors of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Reauthorization Act of 2015, urged Office of Management & Budget Director Mick Mulvaney to withdraw it’s “ill-thought out proposal” to separate the World Trade Center Health Program (WTCHP) from National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) direction. “This proposal from OMB is downright irresponsible,” said Reps. Maloney, Nadler and King. “These heroes deserve the best care, and this proposal from Director Mulvaney means that will not happen. It needs to be withdrawn immediately. We know Director Mulvaney did not support the reauthorization when he was here in congress, we just hope he is not purposefully trying to sabotage it because this suggestion is either incompetence or is being done on purpose. We fought for years to pass the Zadroga Act and you can count on that same passion and energy to make sure this proposal is never enacted.” As the Members state in their letter to Director Mulvaney, “[t]his proposal directly contradicts the legislation Congress passed just three years ago to renew WTCHP for 75 years within NIOSH. This will unnecessarily put at risk the health of those who have been made ill by 9/11, many of whom are still suffering, and in too many cases still dying, from their injuries 17 years later.” Text of the letter is below and a PDF can be found here. Dear Director Mulvaney: We are writing concerning the President’s proposed FY 2019 Budget for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). As the original sponsors of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Reauthorization Act of 2015, we were shocked and disturbed to see the proposal to move the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to the National Institute of Health (NIH), separating the World Trade Center Health Program (WTCHP) from NIOSH direction and placing it as a freestanding entity within the Center for Disease Control (CDC). This proposal directly contradicts the legislation Congress passed just three years ago to renew WTCHP for 75 years within NIOSH. This will unnecessarily put at risk the health of those who have been made ill by 9/11, many of whom are still suffering, and in too many cases still dying, from their injuries 17 years later. There are over 83,000 9/11 responders and survivors receiving medical monitoring and or treatment for injuries and illnesses caused by the toxins at Ground Zero. They live in every state and territory, as well as 433 out of 435 Congressional districts. NIOSH has made tremendous progress improving service delivery to those in the New York region, as well as the National Program outside the New York area. Yet this ill-advised proposal, which was made with no input from the 9/11 health community, completely ignores that work. It was written without any understanding of why we worked to integrate WTCHP into NIOSH.  NIOSH is dedicated to occupational health, the exact expertise that is needed by this injured population. That is why then Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson originally selected Dr. Howard, a Bush Administration appointee, to lead the administration’s response to the growing heath crisis facing so many 9/11 responders and survivors. Since then, NIOSH has been at the forefront of responding to the injuries caused by the toxins at Ground Zero, first through the original monitoring and treatment program and then with the first statutory program created by the original James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010. If you had spoken to us, or anyone with experience in the 9/11 health community, you would have understood that the World Trade Center Health Program is fully integrated within NIOSH and there are many shared NIOSH staff whose expertise would be lost if the WTCHP is pulled from NIOSH. We also would have explained the amount of progress NIOSH has made in service delivery, all of which would b[...]



Ranking Member Nadler Statement Following Indictments Against Russian Operatives by Special Counsel Mueller

Fri, 16 Feb 2018 21:29:17 +0000

Washington, D.C. – Today, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) released the following statement after Special Counsel Robert Mueller issued new indictments against 13 Russian nationals and three Russian groups accused of interfering with the 2016 U.S. elections:

“Given the facts alleged in this indictment, not even President Trump should doubt that the Russian government’s effort to subvert our last election was real, that the conspiracy was aimed at helping the Trump campaign and damaging Hillary Clinton, and that Russian operatives were both present in the United States and aided by co-conspirators on the ground.

“That last point should be repeated: these thirteen defendants worked ‘with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury’ to defraud the United States.  The indictment does not identify these co-conspirators.  I suspect their names will be known to us soon.

“Today’s indictments should lay to rest any assertions by President Trump that the Special Counsel’s investigation is a ‘hoax’ or a ‘witch hunt.’  At this point, any step President Trump may take to interfere with the Special Counsel’s investigation—including removing Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, or threatening to remove Special Counsel Mueller directly—will have to be seen as a direct attempt to aid the Russian government in attacking American democracy.”

###

 




After Florida School Shooting, Nadler Demands Congressional Action To Address Gun Violence

Thu, 15 Feb 2018 22:53:26 +0000

Watch Here

Washington, D.C. – After yesterday’s horrific shooting in Parkland, Florida, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) spoke on the House floor to mourn the victims and demand once again that Congress finally take action to address gun violence in America:

Ranking Member Nadler delivered the following remarks on the House floor:

“Before we discuss the bill before us today, I want to address the horrific school shooting in Florida yesterday. We mourn the deaths of those shot and killed, and we support those who were injured and the families of the victims, but we must also do more to prevent future shootings in our schools and on our streets.

“There have been 18 school shootings in this country so far this year, and it is only February. According to a Washington Post analysis, over the last 19 years ‘more than 150,000 students attending at least 170 primary or secondary schools have experienced a shooting on campus.’ And that does not include violence outside of the classroom. We cannot allow this to continue.

“It is long past due for the House to consider legislation on this floor to help prevent gun violence. Our calls for hearings and for action on gun violence prevention legislation have been met with silence. Congress did nothing after Columbine 20 years ago, and nothing after Sandy Hook five years ago. Inaction is unacceptable, and moments of silence are completely inadequate. Our citizens demand that we act without delay.”

On November 7, 2017, Judiciary Democrats sent a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte to request that the Committee’s ATF briefing be conducted as a public hearing, and that the FBI be included to discuss background check issues. 

On November 1, 2017, all House Judiciary Democrats sent a letter to Chairman Bob Goodlatte, urging him to hold hearings on gun violence in America.

On October 2, 2017, immediately following the Las Vegas shooting, Judiciary Democrats sent a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte to renew their call for hearings on these issues.

###

 




Floor Statement of Ranking Member Nadler in Opposition to H.R. 620, the “ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017”

Thu, 15 Feb 2018 16:48:56 +0000

Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, delivered the following remarks in opposition to H.R.620, the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017, which undermines the civil rights of Americans with disabilities by weakening the incentive for businesses to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, making it harder to enforce the rights of Americans to access a place of public accommodation: "Mr. Chairman, H.R. 620, the so-called “ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017,” would undermine the civil rights of Americans with disabilities by significantly weakening the key enforcement tool of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which is the filing of private lawsuits by discrimination victims.  Congress passed the ADA 28 years ago with the goals of fully integrating persons with disabilities into the mainstream of American life and counteracting discriminatory social attitudes towards the disabled.  By making it harder for persons facing such discrimination to vindicate their rights in court, H.R. 620 ultimately undermines these goals.   "H.R. 620 would, among other things, institute a pre-suit “notice and cure” regime under Title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in public accommodations like hotels, restaurants, private schools, and health care providers. "Specifically, the bill would prohibit a disability discrimination victim from filing a lawsuit to enforce his or her rights under Title III unless the victim first notifies a business of a Title III violation.  The victim must then wait up to 180 days to allow the business either to comply with the law or simply to make some undefined level of “substantial progress” toward complying with the law.  No federal civil rights statute imposes such onerous requirements on discrimination victims before they can have the opportunity to enforce their rights in court.    "Both individually and cumulatively, H.R. 620’s notice and cure provisions will have the effect of inappropriately shifting the burden of compliance with a federal civil rights statute from the alleged wrongdoer onto the discrimination victim and, perversely, incentivizing businesses not to voluntarily comply with the ADA.  "Moreover, because H.R. 620 does not define the term “substantial progress,” the bill leaves it entirely to a business owner’s discretion as to whether he or she has made such progress.  At a minimum, this raises the prospect of expensive and protracted litigation over the question of whether the business made sufficiently “substantial” progress should a lawsuit be filed.  Such a prospect, along with the need to wait 180 days before filing a lawsuit, may be enough to deter discrimination victims with meritorious claims from even sending a notice of a violation, much less filing suit to enforce their rights. "In addition, H.R. 620’s notice requirement is overly burdensome and excessive.  Rather than simply requiring an aggrieved person to notify a business of the existence of an access barrier, H.R. 620 essentially requires the person to plead a legal case in his or her initial notice.  For instance, a victim must cite the specific provision of the ADA that has been violated, describe whether the victim made a request to the business about removing an access barrier, and explain whether an access barrier was temporary or permanent.  Such specific information may be very difficult or impossible for a discrimination victim to provide at the notice stage, particularly without legal counsel.  "Finally, H.R. 620 does not even address the purported problem identified by its proponents, who claim that pre-suit notification is needed to stop lawyers from filing numerous similar lawsuits alleging both federal ADA claims and state law claims against numerous businesses in order to force quick settlements.  That is because many st[...]



Congressman Nadler Statement on President Trump’s FY19 Budget Proposal

Tue, 13 Feb 2018 19:10:10 +0000

WASHINGTON, D.C. --Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) released the following statement on the Trump Administration's FY19 budget proposal:

"The Trump Administration’s FY19 budget proposal continues the disgraceful record of rewarding the wealthy and powerful at the expense of working families. We knew these cuts were coming the second the Republicans passed a $1.5 trillion tax cut that rewarded only the wealthiest Americans. We knew the administration would use that hole in the deficit to justify cutting funding for these critical programs. To see them in print is still galling.   "This budget proposes outrageous cuts to programs that help millions of working families in New York and around the country meet their most basic needs: $214 billion from SNAP (or food stamps), $6.8 billion from federal housing programs including a complete elimination of federal funding for public housing repairs, $4.4 billion from K-12 education, and $72 billion from disability programs. Once again, the budget also cuts all funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The budget also continues the administration’s endless attack on healthcare for working families. On top of once again promising to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, the administration proposes a $1.4 trillion cut from Medicaid over ten years coupled with work requirements and changes to Medicare payments that would result in $266 billion in cuts to hospitals and post-acute care facilities. The budget also defunds Planned Parenthood, leaving millions with no access to care. Of course, the administration attempted to distract us from these egregious funding cuts by trotting out a new infrastructure plan today as well, but that plan is a scam that would put most of the burden for funding our infrastructure on commuters and cash-strapped states, while their budget slashes $168 billion from transportation programs.   "There are many things I could say about this budget. It is inefficient and irresponsible. It is unrealistic. But at its core, this budget, like this administration, is heartless."

###

 




Rep. Nadler Statement on Vote Against Senate Budget Deal

Fri, 09 Feb 2018 19:42:43 +0000

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) released the following statement after voting against the latest budget deal:

"Early this morning, I voted no on the short term spending bill and the budget deal because Speaker Ryan failed to make a sufficient commitment to bring up a bipartisan bill to protect Dreamers from deportation. The bill Congress passed a few hours ago included several Democratic priorities about which I care deeply, including parity in lifting the budget caps and an extension of the debt limit, funding for Community Health Centers and CHIP, and long overdue disaster aid for Puerto Rico and others.   "However, I could not support the bill because Speaker Ryan and the Republicans refuse to stop pandering to the hateful rhetoric of the  President and won’t work with Democrats to find a solution for all those living every day in fear of deportation from the only country they have ever known. As the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I stand ready to work with my Republican colleagues on a bipartisan bill to protect Dreamers. I hope they will choose to pass legislation that will bring us together, not divide us."  

###

 




HOUSE JUDICIARY DEMOCRATS CALL FOR EMERGENCY HEARINGS AFTER ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL REVEALS RUSSIA HACKED U.S. VOTER ROLLS IN 2016

Thu, 08 Feb 2018 17:32:54 +0000

Washington, D.C. – Today, Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) led Democratic Members of the House Judiciary Committee in sending a letter to Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) calling for immediate hearings examining the U.S. election infrastructure after a senior U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official revealed that Russia hacked U.S. voter rolls. The letter asks the Majority for emergency hearings to look into potential vulnerabilities of our election infrastructure, foreign threats posed, and to examine what steps the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and the State Department may or may not be taking to ensure the integrity of future state and federal elections. In their letter, the Members wrote, “It is our Committee’s responsibility to examine the vulnerabilities and risks facing our election processes and infrastructure in order to protect the right to vote for every American—a right that includes not just equal voting rights and access to the polls, but also confidence in the accuracy and security of our election systems.  For these reasons, we urge you to hold immediate hearings on this fundamental issue.” Yesterday, DHS confirmed that not only did the Russians attempt to hack at least 21 states, but they were successful in actually penetrating some of those systems. CIA Director Mike Pompeo and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson both admitted the Russians never ceased their cyber operations from 2016 and will continue their attacks during the 2018 mid-term elections.  Secretary Tillerson seems to believe that there is nothing the government can do to curb these attacks, although experts and lawmakers agree that sanctions and deterrence would help to hold the Russian government accountable. With the first primary election in March 2018, Judiciary Republicans have taken no action to address the ongoing threat Russia poses to the U.S. federal election systems—despite pledging to do so when adopting the Committee’s oversight plan in February 2017.  Today’s letter was signed by every Democrat on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, including: Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Karen Bass (D-CA), Cedric Richmond (D-LA), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), David Cicilline (D-RI), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Brad Schneider (D-IL) and Val Demings (D-FL). Full text of today’s letter is available here and below. February 8, 2018   The Honorable Bob Goodlatte Chairman House Judiciary Committee 2138 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515   Dear Chairman Goodlatte: We write to request that the Committee hold immediate hearings to examine vulnerabilities in our election infrastructure, threats posed to that infrastructure by foreign actors, and what steps the Trump Administration may or may not be taking to ensure the integrity of our state and federal elections. We believe the threat is urgent.  The leadership of the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of State should come before our Committee to inform us of their plans to protect the integrity of our election systems. In February of 2017, you offered an amendment to our oversight plan that, as subsequently amended by Representative David Cicilline (D-RI), stated our intention to conduct oversight into allegations of foreign interference with federal elections.[1]  Unfortunately, since then, we have not held a single hearing on the topic. We have, however, heard alarming testimony on this front from the leadership of the Department of Justice and the FBI. Other high ranking Administration officials have also made similar statements.  CIA Director Pompeo and Secretary of State Tillerson both recently confirmed that Russia is already targetin[...]



DEMOCRATS CALL FOR A HEARING ON MARIJUANA POLICY CHANGE BY A.G. SESSIONS

Thu, 08 Feb 2018 00:10:00 +0000

Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, and ten of his Democratic colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) requesting a hearing on the recent changes to marijuana enforcement guidance issued by the Justice Department during the Obama Administration.  Joining the Ranking Member in signing the letter are Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), David Cicilline (D-RI), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA). The Members wrote, "We fear that the elimination of the Obama Administration’s marijuana enforcement guidance will promote an inefficient use of limited taxpayer resources and subvert the will of voters who have clearly indicated a preference for legalized marijuana in their states." Included in the guidance rescinded by Attorney General Sessions was the memorandum issued in 2013 by then Deputy Attorney General James Cole setting forth considerations federal prosecutors should use when deciding when it would be appropriate to use the limited resources of the Department to prosecute marijuana cases.  The full text of the letter is available here and below:     February 5, 2018   The Honorable Bob Goodlatte Chairman House Committee on the Judiciary 2138 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515   Dear Chairman Goodlatte:       We are deeply concerned by the recent action by Attorney General Sessions rescinding Department of Justice (DOJ) marijuana enforcement guidance issued during the Obama Administration.  We write to request a hearing of the full Judiciary Committee regarding this decision.          On January 4, 2018, Attorney General Sessions issued a memorandum to U.S. Attorneys eliminating marijuana enforcement priorities set forth under President Obama.  Previous memoranda issued during the Obama Administration, such as the memorandum issued in 2013 by then Deputy Attorney General James Cole (Cole Memo), made clear the considerations the federal government should use when deciding to prosecute violations of the Controlled Substances Act related to marijuana. Rather than targeting individuals in states that had legalized marijuana and consequently set up complex regulatory systems, the government focused on priorities that were significant to the federal government. These included preventing gangs and cartels from profiting from marijuana sales and ensuring that state-authorized marijuana was not used to hide other illegal activities. We fear that the elimination of the Obama Administration’s marijuana enforcement guidance will promote an inefficient use of limited taxpayer resources and subvert the will of voters who have clearly indicated a preference for legalized marijuana in their states.  Further, the January 4 memorandum by Attorney General Sessions fails to provide any evidence that prosecuting marijuana in states where it has been legalized will make Americans safer.  DOJ should instead pursue enforcement strategies that are sensible, effective, and enhance public safety, and the Judiciary Committee should be included in these discussions. The Judiciary Committee has a fundamental duty to conduct oversight on the Department of Justice.  It is critical that the members of our committee have an opportunity to ask questions about this recent rescission in a formal setting and evaluate potential legislation related to marijuana. Therefore, we respectfully request a hearing by the full Committee on these issues.       ###   [...]



Top Democrats Request Identities of Regulatory Reform Task Force Members

Wed, 07 Feb 2018 23:10:00 +0000

Washington, D.C. (Feb. 7, 2018)—Today, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the Ranking Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, Rep. Gerald E. Connolly, the Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on Government Operations, and Rep. David N. Cicilline, the Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law, sent letters requesting that multiple agencies provide the identities of their Regulatory Reform Task Force members. On February 24, 2017, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13777, which requires each agency to create a Regulatory Reform Task Force to “evaluate existing regulations,” “make recommendations to the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification,” and identify regulations that “eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;” “are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;” or “impose costs that exceed benefits.” On August 7, 2017, Members requested the names of Task Force participants from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. To date, they have received no response to this request. “The members of these Task Forces may play a significant role in proposing regulatory changes over the course of the Trump Administration,” the Members wrote.  “As we noted in our previous request, the interests of the American public must be paramount when reviewing the worthiness of regulations, and it is therefore critical that these Task Forces maintain guards against conflicts of interest, especially those in which industry lobbyists seek to overturn environmental and health protections for financial gain.”  Press reports indicate that several individuals stand to profit from their work on the Task Forces. For example, the wife of one Environmental Protection Agency Task Force member is a top lobbyist for a large oil company. A Department of Interior Task Force member previously worked for groups with connections to billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch, owners of a conglomerate that sells coal, gas, and other products. A Department of Justice Task Force member was a lawyer at a firm focused on regulatory issues. The Members requested that each agency provide, by February 20, 2018, the names of all Regulatory Reform Task Force members, as well as biographical information considered when selecting them. Members sent the letters to the agencies that have not disclosed their Task Force members, including the Department of Labor, General Services Administration, Office of Personnel Management, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, Department of State, Agency for International Development, Department of Commerce, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, Department of the Interior, and Department of Justice.   ###   [...]



ICYMI: House Judiciary Committee RM Nadler Shares Analysis of Nunes Memo

Mon, 05 Feb 2018 17:16:54 +0000

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- On Saturday, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) sent a legal analysis of the “Nunes memo” to his Democratic colleagues. You can view it here and below.   To Democratic Subscribers House Judiciary Committee Analysis of the Nunes Memo Sending Office: Committee on the Judiciary - Minority Staff February 3, 2018 Dear Democratic Colleague:             On Friday, House Republicans released the so-called “Nunes memo,” a set of deeply misleading talking points drafted by the Republican staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.  House Republicans did so over the objections of the Department of Justice, the Director of the FBI, the Director of National Intelligence, and several Senate Republicans, among others.             You may have heard President Trump describe the allegations in the Nunes memo as a “disgrace.”  He thinks “a lot of people should be ashamed.”  President Trump is right, in his way.  This embarrassingly flawed memo is a disgrace.  House Republicans should be ashamed.             Although I have had the benefit of reading the materials that form the basis for the Nunes memo, most members have not—including, reportedly, Chairman Nunes.  Accordingly, I am forwarding the legal analysis below for use by your office based on my review the Nunes memo and on outside sources.                Please let my staff know if we can provide your office with any additional guidance.                                                              Sincerely,                                                             Jerrold Nadler                                                              Ranking Member                                                             House Committee on the Judiciary   I.          The FISA court found probable cause to believe that Carter Page is an agent of a foreign power.  Nothing in the Nunes memo rules out the possibility that considerable evidence beyond the Steele dossier helped the court reach that conclusion.             We should not lose sight of a critical and undisputed fact: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court found probable cause to believe that Carter Page—a member of the Trump campaign’s foreign policy team—was an agent of the Russian government.             The Nunes memo states that, “[o]n October 21, 2016, DOJ and FBI sought and received a FISA probable cause order . . . authorizing electronic surveillance on Carter Page.”  To obtain an order to conduct surveillance under Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the government must provide “a statement of the facts and circumstances” demonstrating probable cause that “the target of the electronic surveillance is . . . an agent of a foreign power.”             The central allegation of the Nunes memo is that the government committed a fraud when it obtained an order to conduct surveillance of Carter Page, a member of President Trump’s foreign policy team during the campaign.  The memo claims that “[t]he ‘dossier’ compiled by Christopher Steele . . . formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application,” but that the government failed to disclose “the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts.”              If not for this misrepresentation to the court, the story goes, there[...]