Pramila Jayapal

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, my bipartisan amendment would prevent funding from this bill to be used to require the Defense Department to create what is called an unfunded priorities list. This list that DOD is required to send to Congress is simply a wish list of things that individual commanders and generals would like to fund. It has not gone through the level of prioritization and vetting that all of the other things that come in the budget do. In preparing the White House budget request, the Commander in Chief, in consultation with top military brass, determines what is necessary to defend the country based on a holistic analysis of our national security needs. By definition, anything that is in an unfunded priorities list has already been determined to be extraneous by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This practice, that wasn't even mandatory until the passage of the FY17 NDAA, does not serve the national security interests of the United States or the interests of our taxpayers. These wish lists are packed with billions of dollars of excessive line items, this year totaling more than $27.5 billion on top of the $850 billion requested by the White House and a 50 percent increase from last year. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bipartisan and commonsense amendment, and I thank my Republican colleagues, Congressmen McClintock and Davidson, as well as Congressman Garamendi who have joined me to rein in this wasteful spending that has no benefit to our national security. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), my distinguished colleague and the ranking member.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, I understand that it is critical for Congress to engage with the Pentagon to accurately meet our country's national security needs, but we don't have to spend billions of dollars on wish lists and what-ifs to accomplish that. I say that the ranking member is absolutely right. If this is such a great idea for this agency, let's do it for all the agencies. If it is not a great idea for all the agencies, we shouldn't be doing it for the Department of Defense. Let's be clear. If military leaders want more funding for their wish list, there is nothing in this amendment that would prevent DOD from supplying an unfunded priorities list to Congress, but this process should be optional, just as it was 8 years ago. On top of that, most combatant commanders already testify before Congress ahead of the appropriations process so Congress can understand their needs without these wish lists that undercut the President's budget request. By law, individual generals and commanders are required to go around the Commander in Chief and military leadership to Congress to ask for superfluous line items that serve mainly to line the pockets of defense contractors. This is corruption, plain and simple. These lists get in the way of our military's stated priorities. For example, the House passed NDAA authorized funding for some of the Army's unfunded priorities while making substantial cuts to the requested amounts for the Army's three largest accounts. This is despite Army Chief of Staff General Randy George specifically requesting that none of the Army's unfunded priorities displace anything on the Army's FY25 budget request. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this sensible, bipartisan amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Jeffrey Duchin who is retiring after a thirty-year career in public health, most recently as the Health Officer for Public Health--Seattle & King County. Dr. Duchin began working at Public Health--Seattle & King County in 1994 on assignment from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to handle the Tuberculosis and HIV programs. Four years later, Dr. Duchin served as the Public Health--Seattle & King County Chief of Vaccination and Communicable Disease Epidemiology, a position he held until he was named Health Officer in 2015. He has lent his expertise to numerous national policy and advisory bodies where he helped shape approaches to immunizations and infectious diseases. Dr. Duchin is also a longtime Professor at the University of Washington's Schools of Medicine and Public Health. In this capacity, he provides mentorship to students and publishes research on communicable disease. His contributions to infectious disease research will undoubtedly leave a mark on the field for years to come. Dr. Duchin's outstanding work helped King County and Washington State navigate the COVID-19 pandemic and better prepare for public health emergencies. In 2020, King County experienced America's first known COVID-19 case and the first large outbreak. Dr. Duchin immediately stepped into action and his leadership was nationally recognized. During this time, Dr. Duchin prioritized community engagement and solutions that centered equity. My staff and I partnered closely with Public Health--Seattle & King County during the pandemic. Dr. Duchin's invaluable expertise, frequent updates and excellent communication were essential for the intergovernmental partnerships that supported our communities throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Duchin's prioritization of science and deep understanding of the intersectionality of health saved countless lives. Dr. Duchin's tireless commitment to public health has benefitted the lives of so many in King County and beyond. His leadership will serve as a model for Washington State's leaders for years to come. I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating his many accomplishments and contributions to public health. On behalf of Washington's 7th Congressional District, I thank Dr. Jeffrey Duchin for his service to the people of the Pacific Northwest.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I missed Roll Call votes 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, and 275 on June 13, 2024, due to illness. Had I been present, my votes would have been: Nay on Roll Call No. 261; Nay on Roll Call No. 262; Nay on Roll Call No. 263; Yea on Roll Call No. 264; Nay on Roll Call No. 265; Nay on Roll Call No. 266; Nay on Roll Call No. 267; Nay on Roll Call No. 268; Nay on Roll Call No. 269; Nay on Roll Call No. 270; Nay on Roll Call No. 271; Nay on Roll Call No. 272; Nay on Roll Call No. 273; Nay on Roll Call No. 274; and Nay on Roll Call No. 275.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I missed Roll Call No. 253 on June 12, 2024. Had I been present, my vote would have been Nay.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I missed Roll Call votes 219 and 220 on May 21, 2024, and 221 and 222 on May 22, 2024. Had I been present, my votes would have been: Yea on Roll Call No. 219; Yea on Roll Call No. 220; Nay on Roll Call No. 221; and Nay on Roll Call No. 222.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, the Nunn amendment requires the Attorney General to report on how much each State spent on investigating fentanyl trafficked through the border. I do not oppose this amendment because it does not repeat the same misleading talking points that Republicans often use when discussing fentanyl, and I am grateful to my colleague across the aisle for that. I did want to make a couple of points on this because I think fentanyl is such an important issue in all of our districts. It is a scourge on all of our districts, all of our communities. We are all seeing the effects of fentanyl that is coming into this country. We know that fentanyl is being smuggled into our country and that some of it comes through our southern border, but I do want to make clear that fentanyl is seized primarily at the ports of entry. In fiscal year 2023, CBP seized approximately 27,000 pounds of fentanyl. Less than 10 percent of the drugs were actually seized by Border Patrol. The vast majority, roughly 90 percent of the drugs, were seized by the Office of Field Operations, which is the entity that mans the ports of entry. I will be clear that the evidence does not show in any way that asylum seekers are bringing drugs to our shores. In fact, increasingly, drug cartels are being very smart about this. They are recruiting American citizens to bring drugs across the border through ports of entry. In 2022, over 89 percent of convicted fentanyl traffickers were American citizens. If my Republican colleagues were serious about stopping the flow of fentanyl, the flow of drugs across the border, then I think we should be giving additional resources to the agencies that are manning those ports of entry. Instead, all but six current House Republicans voted against the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which provided additional funding to ports of entry to combat the smuggling of people and drugs. All but two current House Republicans voted against providing robust funding for border security operations in the 2023 appropriations omnibus legislation, which provided more than $17 billion to Customs and Border Protection, including funding for an additional 300 Border Patrol agents. The omnibus also included $60 million to hire 125 CBP officers and $70 million for nonintrusive inspection technology to detect narcotics and firearms at ports of entry. That is exactly the kind of technology that our Border Patrol agents are asking us for. Republicans have also refused to consider President Biden's emergency supplemental funding request for additional border resources, which included $239 million to hire 1,000 additional CBP officers to stop fentanyl and other contraband from entering the United States. It included $100 million for ICE/Homeland Security Investigations to investigate and disrupt transnational criminal organizations and drug traffickers, and it included $849 million for cutting-edge detection technologies at ports of entry. This is the work the Democrats have been doing to try to address the scourge of fentanyl that is coming across our southern border and coming into our country by supporting law enforcement and stopping that fentanyl. Fentanyl is a huge problem in our communities. It is important that we support our law enforcement in fighting against it. This amendment would simply inform Congress about how much States are spending to combat fentanyl and, therefore, I see no reason to oppose it. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time is remaining.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, while you may not know it from some of the language that is being used today, we are debating a poorly written ``reporting bill'' that will do nothing. This bill is full of empty rhetoric, it makes no policy changes to address the outdated immigration system, and it provides no funding of any kind. All this bill does is attempt to produce a onetime politically motivated report on the so-called Biden border crisis, just one report. That is it. Give me a break. Even though the entire bill is focused on reporting requirements related to the ``Biden border crisis,'' the bill doesn't even define the term. It is as if we needed more proof that this is not serious legislation and that it is more about messaging than congressional oversight of the executive branch. Why are we continuing to waste our time marking up these meaningless messaging bills? I have said this before, and I am going to say it again because the same resolutions keep coming up over and over again, so I feel as if I need to repeat myself. The situation at the border is directly linked to the fact that the legal immigration system has not been modernized in 30 years. It has been left in chaos because it has not been updated to meet the needs of our country today. When the legal process is so outdated that it takes decades for green card holders to get their children into the country, or when employers simply can't get visas for the people that they need to hire because 2 million people are in processing backlogs, or when we have so few immigration judges that asylum seekers wait over 8 years to get their cases heard, then people turn to unscrupulous actors, including the cartels. The cartels promise desperate people that they can escape dangerous situations by paying cartels to get them in to seek safety by crossing the border. If my colleagues on the other side were serious about addressing the situation, Republicans would work with us to fix the immigration system to provide people with workable ways to immigrate. That would disempower the cartels. It would ensure the integrity of the border. It would give us what we all want, which is order at the border that is fueled and made possible by a legal immigration system that works and a legal immigration system that provides pathways for people to come to work here, to be with their families, and to contribute to our economy. That is what we need right now, but here we are. Instead of that, we are defending a bill with no chance of becoming law or solving the problem. Republicans are showing clearly what we Democrats have been saying over and over again, that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to do anything that would help fix the broken immigration system. Instead of solving the problem, Republicans want to continue to weaponize the border as a political issue for this election year. Rather than debating meaningless bills, we should be exploring how to meaningfully reform the broken immigration system and expand lawful immigration to the United States, given the very clear and documented benefits that that brings. In 2021 alone, DACA recipients paid $6.5 billion in taxes; refugees paid almost $28 billion in taxes; and TPS holders paid $2.2 billion in taxes. Likewise, in 2021, undocumented immigrants paid approximately $18.6 million in Federal income taxes and $12.2 billion in State and local taxes. Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services released a study demonstrating that refugees and asylees generated $124 billion in fiscal benefits over 15 years, and the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan entity, recently released a report finding that recent immigrants who joined the workforce will actually add $1 trillion of revenue to our country's GDP between 2023 and 2034. It is also estimated that putting undocumented immigrants on a roadmap to citizenship would not only increase U.S. GDP by $1.7 trillion over the next decade, but that action would also raise wages for all Americans and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. Unfortunately, Republicans talk a big game when it comes to immigration and border security, but instead of trying to pass thoughtful, bipartisan legislation to address problems in our immigration system, my colleagues waste our time on bills like the ones before us today. Members don't have to just take it from me. The fact is that the second most conservative Republican Senator in the United States Senate crafted a bill with some Democratic support to put forward before us on immigration reform, and Republicans decided that the majority didn't even want to consider that bill or vote on that bill. Do my colleagues know why? Because Donald Trump told them not to because it would take away what Republicans see as an election issue. I believe the American people are smarter than that. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this meaningless bill and to see very clearly that Republicans are not interested in solutions, in governing, but are just interested in meaningless messaging bills to try to divide us when we really should be celebrating the tremendous benefits that immigrants contribute to our country every single day. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment furthers the major drafting problems in this legislation by asking the Attorney General to report on how the so-called Biden border crisis impacted law enforcement recruiting. As I said earlier, there is no definition for the ``Biden border crisis,'' and this amendment highlights just how unserious this legislation is. How on Earth is the Attorney General supposed to determine how the border impacts law enforcement recruitment? Are local law enforcement agencies going to have to go to all the candidates who turned down job offers and ask them if their decision was influenced by the border? This bill is a huge waste of time, and this amendment serves only to make this poorly drafted bill even more incomprehensible. I, therefore, oppose its adoption, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose it, as well. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires the Attorney General to report on how local officers and resources have been reallocated to combat fentanyl trafficked through the border. I do not oppose the amendment because the amendment itself, like the previous amendment, does not repeat the same misleading talking points. I was ready to give my colleague across the aisle some credit again, but, unfortunately, the same misleading talking points were just repeated in talking about the amendment. Fentanyl is not coming across the southern border because of some failed border policy. It is coming across the southern border primarily carried by American citizens at ports of entry. This is about providing resources to our law enforcement officers on the southern border to be able to have the technology to detect that fentanyl. It is about providing enough people so that they can actually do the kind of monitoring that they are asking for. It is about providing the resources that Democrats put forward as the answer to this question and Republicans oppose time and time again. I will be very clear that I appreciate the data that we are getting because fentanyl is a scourge. I have gone out with my local firefighters across Seattle multiple times, and I will tell you that 99 percent of their calls are responding to fentanyl overdoses, to opioid overdoses, and it is heartbreaking to see what is happening. In fact, in my first year, I worked with Speaker Mike Johnson on a bipartisan allocation of money to provide other ways of dealing with overdoses due to opioids and fentanyl on the streets by actually providing supportive services for law enforcement so law enforcement wasn't having to deal with all of this. I don't think that this is something that the majority of our law enforcement members want to be dealing with in our cities. I just want to be clear: We should be fighting the scourge of fentanyl. We should be doing it in a bipartisan way. We should not be doing it as part of some legislation that is meaningless, that puts the blame for what is happening with fentanyl on some ``Biden border policy that has failed.'' Combating fentanyl should be a priority for all of us regardless of what side of the aisle we are on. We should not repeat the talking points that are divisive and untrue in talking about this issue. Fentanyl seizures shot up during the Trump administration and have continued to rise during the Biden administration. It is a bipartisan problem. Fentanyl poisoning is killing so many beloved members of our communities, and we have to do everything to stop it. Republicans often assert, without any evidence, that asylum seekers are the ones that are bringing fentanyl onto our shores, even though the data suggests otherwise. Once again, I am going to repeat this: The vast majority of fentanyl that is seized coming into this country is seized at ports of entry, smuggled in by United States citizens. Playing politics about such a deadly substance is extraordinarily irresponsible. Fortunately, the amendment itself is straightforward, and it aims to get more data about combating fentanyl so we can be better informed about how it is impacting our communities. The underlying legislation, on the other hand, and some of the talking points that are used by my colleagues across the aisle is not that. The underlying legislation is poorly written, and it is misleading. The talking points are misleading, but the amendment is clear, and so because of that, I see no reason to oppose it. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, here I was coming to the floor thinking that I could support an amendment that made sense to me about fighting the scourge of fentanyl, and I do support the amendment because I think data will be good for us. I just would say to my friend across the aisle: Shutting down the border is not going to fix this problem. By saying that and by continuing to use those divisive talking points, he is moving us away from a solution to the really dire issue of fentanyl that is killing our communities. Let's work together in a bipartisan way to actually deal with the scourge of fentanyl. Let's not put it on the border and let's not pretend that shutting down the border is going to help because, as I said, fentanyl poisoning rose under the Trump administration, and Donald Trump did try to shut down the border until the courts prevented him from doing that. The reality here is, we have a real problem. We have a real problem. I was willing to come to the floor and support this amendment because I think the data is important, and I hope my colleague across the aisle will recognize that sticking to the facts, as he did in his amendment, is the most important thing to actually addressing the issue of fentanyl. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this overly broad and unnecessary legislation. Supposedly, this bill would subject any undocumented immigrant to mandatory immigration detention if they commit an assault on a law enforcement officer. To be clear, that is already current law. However, this bill goes far beyond that. It would subject even those individuals with lawful status, like DACA and temporary protected status, to mandatory detention if they are merely arrested or charged with assault on a law enforcement officer. There are no provisions to protect those who are mistakenly arrested and are released without charges. In addition, the definition of ``assault'' varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Nevertheless, this bill adopts the definition of ``assault'' used in the local jurisdiction to subject somebody to mandatory detention. That means that conduct that people would not normally think of as an assault, like literally touching an officer, could result in an arrest and mandatory detention. Furthermore, people are mistakenly arrested for assault on a police officer far more often than we would like to admit. When this bill was introduced, it was clearly in response to an incident earlier this year in which some recently arrived migrants allegedly assaulted a group of law enforcement officers in Times Square. That incident sparked outrage across the country, but our Republican colleagues directed much of their ire at one particular individual who flipped off TV cameras as he left his arraignment. The image was plastered all over FOX News and was promoted by former President Trump as a symbol of everything that is wrong with the Biden administration's approach to immigration. There was only one problem, Mr. Chairman. As it turned out, that specific individual, who everyone was so quick to demonize and attack, had the charges dropped against him. Despite being arrested and initially charged, he was not even present when this crime occurred. We also see this in protests, where one person gets unruly and the police arrest everyone in the crowd. Let's be clear: Violence is never the answer and should never be used in a political protest. It was wrong for people to assault the police right here in the United States Capitol on January 6, just as it is wrong for people to assault the police or anyone else during any protest, regardless of their politics. That is why U.S. law already makes assault a crime. Admitting to or being convicted of a serious assault on a law enforcement officer already results in immigration consequences under current law, including mandatory detention and deportation. This bill doesn't change that, doesn't make anybody safer, and doesn't fix any problems in the immigration system. Instead, this legislation deems everyone guilty until proven innocent. It serves only to further the Republican agenda to fearmonger about immigrants and keep immigration in the news during an election year while, at the same time, bankrolling the private, for-profit prison companies. This bill is going nowhere fast, just like the very similar bill that House Republicans passed last Police Week. The American people aren't stupid. They see what House Republicans are doing. They want meaningful reforms to the system, and they know that bills like this would do absolutely nothing toward that end. House Republicans refuse to negotiate on immigration, and the majority fails to do anything that would actually solve some of these problems we face, only to turn around and complain when those problems get worse. This is political theater at its worst, and I urge all of my colleagues to join with me to oppose this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Chairman, assaulting a law enforcement officer is a serious offense that deserves both criminal and immigration consequences. That is why serious assaults on law enforcement officers are already immigration violations that require detention and deportation. The bill before us today would do absolutely nothing to change that. This legislation instead would dramatically expand the type of conduct that would subject somebody to mandatory detention, to include people who may not have even committed a crime at all. That is not a good use of our limited law enforcement resources. Instead of wasting our time on these bills that do nothing to fix our immigration system and stand no chance of becoming law, we should be talking about how to create a workable immigration system that allows Americans to reunite with their families and allows American businesses and universities to attract the best and the brightest, essentially creating a workable process so that people wouldn't be forced to go to the border as the only way to come to the United States. We should be talking about the fact that immigrants are good for the country and good for our economy. One in four American doctors were born abroad, and roughly 45 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants. Seventy percent of agricultural workers are immigrants. Immigrants feed us, heal us, and help ensure that this country remains an economic powerhouse. We could be embracing the positive impacts of immigrants rather than demonizing them. The Congressional Budget Office recently announced that new immigrants will add $1 trillion in previously unexpected revenue to our country's GDP between 2023 and 2024. Similarly, the Department of Health and Human Services found that, over a 15-year period, asylees and refugees contributed nearly $124 billion more in revenue than they received in services from the government. Documented and undocumented immigrants paid tens of billions of dollars in taxes each year. The majority insists on scapegoating and fearmongering immigrants. It is true that the immigration system has deep problems, but they cannot be solved through an enforcement-only approach. We have been trying that approach for 30 years, and it has failed. The truth is that the immigration system is all connected. People are coming to the border because the legal immigration system has not been updated in over 30 years, and they cannot find any other pathway to come in. The majority often talks about legal immigrants. Let me say that the wait time for some permanent residents to bring their families into this country is over a century-long--a century for legal permanent residents to bring their family members into the country. Employers are begging us to modernize the employment-based immigration system because the limits on high-tech visas were set when floppy disks were the height of technology. These companies cannot hire the people who they need. Additionally, the small number of immigration judges that we have are absolutely crushed under a massive backlog of asylum cases so extensive that it is now taking people over 8 years to even get a hearing. Why doesn't the majority just help us put more money into immigration judges so we can resolve that backlog? Why not open legal pathways for people who are trying to come here legally? I know this, Mr. Chairman, because I came here, and it took me 17 years to navigate the immigration system and become a U.S. citizen, but that was several decades ago. Now, you can't even get through the process. I hope that one day we can get back to actually governing, to passing real bills that can make a difference in the lives of the American people. I fear, Mr. Chairman, that today is not that day. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, this amendment requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study and report to Congress on the number of undocumented immigrants detained for committing an assault against a law enforcement officer over the past 5 years. It is important for us to take a step back and remind ourselves what the underlying legislation is about. This bill would subject even those individuals with a lawful status like DACA or temporary protected status to mandatory detention if they are merely arrested or charged with an assault on a law enforcement officer. There are no provisions to protect those who are mistakenly arrested and are released without charges. This is an unnecessary expansion of the law, which already subjects people to mandatory detention and deportation if they admit to or are convicted of such assault. In fact, I imagine that this report would demonstrate that the underlying legislation is wholly unnecessary because it would show that under current law people who commit assaults on law enforcement are already subject to detention. Therefore, I see no reason to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, this legislation has absolutely nothing to do with the border. It doesn't do anything to secure our border. It doesn't do anything to fix the broken immigration system. I don't oppose this amendment because I actually think it is going to make my point at the end of the day with the report. I don't oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.