Pramila Jayapal

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, this amendment would expand the scope of this already bad bill to include campus police and school resource officers under the term ``law enforcement officers.'' Unfortunately, this amendment makes a bad bill even worse while highlighting one of the many flaws in the bill. First, the fact that Mr. Norman felt the need to file this amendment to begin with just highlights the lack of clarity around this bill. As we have discussed, this bill will subject any inadmissible immigrant to mandatory immigration detention for merely being arrested or charged with assault on a law enforcement officer or first responder, but the bill lacks any definition for what is considered a first responder. Mr. Norman was clearly concerned with this as well and felt the need to make sure that campus police and school resource officers were included. Unfortunately, Mr. Norman's amendment does not bring any additional clarity to the definition of first responder, and it even adds another undefined term, ``school resource officer.'' Now, Mr. Norman could easily have remedied this by choosing the definition that exists in title 34 of the U.S. Code, but for some reason he did not. States all over the country use different definitions for school resource officers. They have different duties and functions depending on the State, so this amendment raises far more questions than it begins to answer. On top of the poor drafting, this amendment expands an already bad bill and makes the bill worse. As I discussed during general debate, it is quite common during protests for law enforcement to arrest an entire group of people after one person in the crowd gets unruly. After the largely peaceful protests that we have seen on college campuses over the last month, protests made up largely of young people and teenagers, it would be a mistake to extend this definition to include campus police. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, none of us are condoning violence on campuses. All I said is that the vast majority of protesters on campuses have been peaceful. What happens when one person does something and the entire group is arrested is relevant for this amendment. I don't think anybody believes that that should be the case. I am not really sure why the gentleman felt the need to clarify exactly what the definition was in this underlying legislation except that it wasn't clear, which is the point that I have been making all along. The problem is that the amendment actually makes other terms unclear, as well. Mr. Chairman, as I said, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires that the Department of Homeland Security provide an annual report to the Judiciary Committee of the House and the Senate containing the number of immigrants the Department detained as a result of this bill in that year. Under this bill, that report would include people being detained even if a person is merely arrested and never charged or after the charges against them were dropped. It is important to remember that this bill does not include any waivers or provisions to exempt people who were mistakenly arrested or found not guilty. I really hope that this report, if requested, will contain a breakdown of the number of people detained by category so that we could see how many innocent people were subject to mandatory detention under this bill. Right now, the amendment doesn't get into that level of detail, but I hope my colleagues across the aisle will work with me to make sure that we get all of the data that is provided, including that breakdown. Nevertheless, while this amendment does nothing to improve the underlying legislation, it doesn't do anything to make it worse, and so I therefore see no reason to oppose it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the aisle just mischaracterized the Democratic amendment that was offered during committee, and I think if he went back and looked at the record, he would see that. Mr. Speaker, this legislation purports to improve law enforcement officer safety and wellness. It seeks to do this by requiring the Attorney General and other Federal officials to issue reports about attacks on officers, aggression against officers, and officer mental health. While this legislation may seem on the surface to be meaningful, let us be really clear: It is just more cheap talk from Republicans. Absolutely nothing in this bill makes a single police officer safer or invests a single dollar in officer wellness. While the collection of accurate data, including data on officer attacks and mental health is important, this bill is unlikely to provide any new or meaningful data. By necessity, data about incidents of violence against law enforcement officers must already be initially collected and reported, if at all, by Tribal, State, and local authorities who are in the best position to know about these incidents, not the Attorney General. The Federal Government collects this data through participation by these authorities in voluntary data reporting programs like the National Incident-Based Reporting System and the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted data collection. Nothing in this bill provides any resources for more agencies to participate in these data collection programs, nor does it mandate any kind of reporting. Given that there is nothing in this bill to improve the underlying data that is available to the Attorney General and others, it is unlikely that the reporting required by the bill would be able to deliver any new insights that might actually improve officer safety. Democrats sought to solve this basic problem of inadequate data collection through the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. Under that bill, States would be required to report shootings, deaths, and other uses of force involving law enforcement officers, and States would receive grants to facilitate that reporting. By both mandating and supporting data collection and reporting, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act would significantly improve the data available to the Congress, Federal agencies, and the public. Critically, unlike this legislation, that bill would require reporting of uses of force both by and against law enforcement, enabling us to have a full understanding of the dangers faced by officers, as well as the injuries and deaths of civilians that are caused by police. In focusing only on attacks against officers, this bill turns a blind eye to uses of force by law enforcement against civilians, whether it is justified or not. The mental health reporting provisions of the bill are also unlikely to improve officer wellness because they fail to build on the work of past Congresses and the Biden administration. In the 115th Congress, we passed the Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act, a bipartisan bill signed into law by President Obama, which directed the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the DOJ's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services to report on mental health practices and services that could be adopted by law enforcement and the programs already available to them. It also expanded the availability of grant funds for law enforcement mental health and developed new educational resources. Building on this work, President Biden issued a 2022 executive order on advancing effective, accountable policing and criminal justice practices to enhance public trust and public safety. The executive order required the Attorney General to develop and publish a report on best practices to address law enforcement officer wellness and to make recommendations regarding the prevention of death by suicide of law enforcement officers. The Attorney General has already complied with this executive order, so we already know much more about the mental health resources and the needs of law enforcement. Rather than retread our steps, we should be moving forward to help our law enforcement officers implement this important work so that more officers can access the support that they need. Last Congress, under Democratic control, the House passed numerous bipartisan bills that improved law enforcement officer safety and wellness like Protecting America's First Responders Act, the Public Safety Officer Support Act, the Confidentiality Opportunities for Peer Support, or COPS Counseling Act, and the Law Enforcement De-Escalation Training Act. At least seven bipartisan law enforcement bills, many led by Republicans, have been passed by the Democrat-led Senate. These are bills that would help law enforcement and are priorities for the police groups, but, so far, House Republicans have only advanced one of them. This legislation represents another wasted opportunity to work together on substantive proposals that will make our communities and the law enforcement officers that protect them safer. I urge Members to oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Christina Scheppelmann, who is stepping down after five years of service as the General Director of Seattle Opera. Seattle Opera thrived under Christina's leadership. Her passion for the performing arts will undoubtedly leave a mark on the City of Seattle for years to come. In the process of navigating a global pandemic that halted over two years of in-house performances, Christina led Seattle Opera to be able to deliver the entirety of its programming during the 2020-2021 season by recording performances for patrons to stream online. She helped hire artists to present free, online performances and expand virtual educational programming for youth and Veterans. When pandemic restrictions began to partially lift in 2021, Christina committed to offering Seattle Opera's first celebratory outdoor rendition of ``Die Walkure'' by Richard Wagner. Throughout her tenure, Christina forged a deep commitment to community engagement as well as diversity, equity and inclusion. Under her leadership, the Seattle Opera presented a number of works by and about people of color. The productions included ``Blue'', a story about a Black family that draws strength from their community in the face of a police killing and ``Bound'', a story about a daughter of Vietnamese immigrants, as well as A Thousand Splendid Suns and X: The Life and Times of Malcolm X. In all of these productions, she engaged the community through Advisory Boards, outreach to the specific communities represented in the productions, and nonprofit organizations working on the issues. Her goal, in her words to me, was that these productions ``showcase how Seattle Opera is keeping relevant stories centered on- stage.'' In 2020, she led Seattle Opera to launch its Racial Equity and Social Impact plan. The effort contributed toward hiring a diverse staff and brought over 100 new artists from around the world to debut performances. Her addition of community programs such as the Jane Lang Davis Creation Lab and the Seattle Arts Fellowship--will serve as trademark opportunities for underrepresented communities to build careers in the arts. Christina's leadership at the Seattle Opera exemplifies the need for all of us in the United States to ensure we support the arts and the unique ability arts have to add positively to our society. As Christina moves on from her role at the end of the 2023-24 season to lead La Monnaie De Munt in Brussels, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating her many accomplishments and contributions to Seattle Opera. On behalf of Washington's 7th Congressional District, I thank Christina for her service to the people of the Pacific Northwest and dedication to the performing arts.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this absurd and pointless resolution. I will say that I actually agree with the previous speaker across the aisle, my friend across the aisle, when he said that this body wants to do absolutely nothing that actually solves the situation at the border. I agree with my friend across the aisle that this body, controlled by the Republican majority, has no interest in doing a single thing. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we keep voting on resolutions that do nothing. They are pointless, they are absurd, and they are a tired recycling of the same talking points that we hear every day from the majority. Frankly, the majority is not trying to hide it. Whole sections of today's resolution, including its title and 12 of the 32 whereas clauses are copied and pasted from the other grievance-airing resolution that we considered in March, so these aren't even new. These are the same things that we are voting on over and over again because there aren't actual solutions that Republicans are willing to move forward on that would fix the immigration system. Likewise, 2 weeks ago, we voted on a pointless rehashing of H.R. 2, the Republicans' extreme, cruel, and unworkable immigration bill that is going nowhere fast. What are we doing here, Mr. Speaker? Why does the majority insist on wasting our time with these bills filled with nothing but empty rhetoric designed to try and weaponize the issue of immigration instead of solving it? What we should be doing is talking about how to create a bipartisan, workable immigration system that allows Americans to reunite with their families, allows American businesses and universities to attract the best and the brightest, and create a workable process so that people wouldn't be forced to go to the border as the only way here. We should be talking about the fact that immigrants are good for our country and good for our economy. That is what the majority of Americans believe, despite all of the rhetoric from the other side. One in four American doctors were born abroad, and roughly 45 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or children of immigrants. Seventy percent of agricultural workers are immigrants. Immigrants feed us, they heal us, and they help ensure that the country remains an economic powerhouse. We could be here on the floor embracing the positive impacts of immigrants rather than demonizing them, finding ways to allow people to work more quickly to fill the shortages that we have in our labor sector. 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 2034. Similarly, the Department of Health and Human Services found that over a 15-year period, asylees and refugees alone contributed nearly $124 billion more in revenue than they received in services from the government. Documented and undocumented immigrants pay tens of billions of dollars in taxes every single year. Instead, what are we doing here on the floor? The same tired rhetoric that we hear every single week. The majority insists on demonizing immigrants and the border. It is true that we desperately need to fix a broken immigration system that hasn't been updated in over 30 years, but we cannot do that, we cannot solve that problem just through harsh enforcement measures alone. We have been trying that approach for 30 years under different Presidents, and every time it fails. 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 three decades, and they cannot find another pathway to come under. The wait time for some legal permanent residents to bring their families into this country is over a century long, a century to bring your own family to this 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, and people cannot hire the people they need. 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 get a hearing. Under these circumstances, it should not surprise anyone that some desperate people see coming to the border as their only option, especially when they are fleeing for their lives from countries that cannot or will not protect them. If they are willing to face the dangers of the journey and deal with unscrupulous actors like cartels to get to safety here, even the most draconian of policies will not deter them. That is why, despite what you hear from the other side, even when former President Trump implemented the policies that this resolution holds up as the cure to all of our problems, encounters at the border actually went up, not down. They didn't work. Instead of talking about these failed policies, we could be discussing the countless, real, bipartisan solutions that passed when Democrats held the House majority, solutions like the Dream and Promise Act, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, bills that would fix real gaps in the immigration system, provide lawful status to people who have been contributing to our communities across the country for decades, and actually make improvements that would relieve pressure on the border. We could be trying to pass the kinds of investments that would actually increase the number of immigration judges and asylum officers that would help speed up the process and make it work effectively. Will any of those things make it to the floor in this Congress under a Republican majority whose only goal is to keep this issue out there as an election issue, just as former President Trump told them to do? No, we are just going to spend our time debating pointless resolutions that do not a single thing to fix the real situation of a broken immigration system. We are going to keep debating nonbinding resolutions filled to the brim with mistruths and disinformation. Mr. Speaker, I hope we can one day get back to actually governing in this House, but I fear that today is not that day.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this cruel, unworkable and inhumane modified version of the Republican border bill H.R. 2. What is the point of this exercise? The majority could barely pass this legislation last year over bipartisan opposition, and now it is going to magically pass it in the House with a two-thirds majority. Give me a break. That is not what is happening here. They say when someone shows you who they are, you should believe them the first time. Well, the majority has shown us who they are on this issue over and over and over again. They consistently reject bipartisan solutions, including a bill that was drafted in the Senate by the second most conservative Republican Senator. Yet, the majority and Republicans in the House and the Senate decided to kill that bill. You know why? Because Donald Trump said kill the bill because we want to keep immigration out there as an issue that doesn't get solved, doesn't have any solutions, but has some empty talking point messaging bills that continue to demonize immigrants and create xenophobia in a country that has depended on immigrants to build this country and continues to. Republicans have said it out loud over and over again. They don't want solutions. They don't want to solve problems. They just want to preserve the issue for the election. This bill is going nowhere. Let's just be clear about that. The situation at the border is directly linked to the fact that the legal immigration system has been left in chaos because it has not been modernized in 30 years to meet the needs of this country. Who has stopped that modernization? Republicans have stopped it over and over again; when the legal process is so backed up that it takes decades for legal residents to get their children into the country, when employers can't simply get the workers that they need to hire approved because there is a backlog of 2 million people who haven't been processed or when we have so few immigration judges that asylum seekers wait for over 8 years to get their cases heard.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, when asylum seekers wait 8 years to get their cases heard, then, yes, people turn to unscrupulous actors, including cartels, who promise them get in by going to the border. The only people talking about the open border and encouraging people to come across the border are Republicans who continue to put that message out there. Are we looking for solutions, Mr. Speaker? No, we are here debating a bill that has no chance of becoming law and is an empty messaging bill that does absolutely nothing to reform our outdated immigration system. Let's get back to governing.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I missed Roll Call No. 116 on April 12, 2024. Had I been present, my vote would have been Nay.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, I am proud to cosponsor this important bipartisan bill that protects Americans' constitutional privacy rights in this digital age by closing loopholes so that the government cannot purchase Americans' private data from data brokers without a warrant. Last year, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declassified a report on how the intelligence community buys significant amounts of Americans' data from data brokers. We are talking about very sensitive personal information that can cover anything from Americans' location data to internet activity. That report noted that this data ``has increasingly important risks and implications for U.S. person privacy and civil liberties, as [the data] can reveal sensitive and intimate information about individuals.'' This isn't just some small group of people saying that we don't like this. It is actually the Office of the Director of National Intelligence saying that this practice of buying peoples' personal information without a warrant from these data brokers is dangerous, and it is a runaround of our constitutional protections. Just last month, we banned foreign adversaries from buying this data. It is important that this body today protect Americans, protect our constitutional rights, and ban this practice. Vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, we have a critical opportunity today to stand up for the civil liberties that are enshrined in our Constitution while also safeguarding our national security. Every single day, the FBI conducts an average of 500 warrantless searches of Americans' private communications, resulting in over 278,000 searches in 1 year alone. The FBI has invaded the privacy of Members of Congress, a State court judge who reported civil rights violations by a local police chief, Black Lives Matter protesters, and more. We cannot pass this bill without additional protections, like my amendment with Representatives Biggs, Nadler, Jordan, Lofgren, and Davidson, to close the backdoor search loophole. Unfortunately, there are some members of the intelligence community and some Members of this body who are circulating information that simply is not correct, and I need to correct the record right here. Some Members have implied that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board does not support the amendment. To counter that, let me share some quotes from Sharon Bradford Franklin in her personal capacity as Chair of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the independent government agency tasked with ensuring the executive branch conducts national security work in a way that protects our civil liberties and privacy. She said: It is critical that in reauthorizing section 702, Congress includes a warrant requirement for U.S. person queries. Requiring a warrant for U.S. person queries would neither end U.S. person queries nor undermine the overall value of section 702. Outside of the category of ``victim queries,'' the FBI has not been able to identify any cases in which a section 702 U.S. person query provided unique value in advancing a criminal investigation. In addition, the government has been unable to identify a single criminal prosecution that relied on evidence identified through a U.S. person query. The warrant requirement contained in the warrant amendment includes important exceptions that would address the government's concerns about slowing down the process for U.S. person queries. Exceptions are provided for exigent circumstances, consent, cybersecurity, and metadata-only queries. Mr. Chair, let me be clear that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, in its oversight capacity, has the same access to all the classified intelligence that the agencies cite when they try to scare us into reauthorizing FISA with minimal changes. We have a bipartisan amendment that would fix this problem. We have a responsibility to stand up for civil liberties of our constituents. We cannot pass this bill without requiring intelligence agencies to ensure that Americans' privacy rights are upheld at every turn.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, and, yes, I agree with Chairman Jordan on an immigration amendment because this is an expansion of the government's ability to surveil. We have this opportunity right here in Congress today to add critical safeguards and not expand the government's use of this surveillance authority. This inexcusable expansion of FISA will further increase warrantless surveillance, and it is at the expense of a whole slew of innocent immigrants. People seeking to come to this country are not monolithic communities cut off from Americans. Many of them are close family members of U.S. citizens seeking reunification through family sponsorship or just a simple visit. Many others are sponsored by U.S. employers. There is already ample vetting of immigrants. Just look at refugees, who are the most vetted group of people who come to this country. It takes years of vetting through multiple agencies, including the FBI, the National Counterterrorism Center, and other agencies. This amendment is only going to make these processing backlogs worse. It will further delay American businesses from getting the workers we need to maintain our competitiveness and our ability to attract the best and the brightest. It could harm local economies that rely on tourism as delays in processing travel visas deter people from travel to America. We should not be expanding FISA. We should be creating safeguards to protect foundational civil liberties rights. Earlier, one of my colleagues claimed that not a single Federal court has identified a Fourth Amendment issue with U.S. person queries. Mr. Chair, that is false. In 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found Fourth Amendment concerns with U.S. person queries, and that issue is still being debated. We are talking about an average of 500 warrantless searches of Americans' private communications every single day. Don't take it from me.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Here is a quote from Travis LeBlanc, a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board member: Although section 702 is touted as a foreign intelligence tool, it is apparent that a key feature is domestic intelligence and criminal law enforcement. For example, DOJ reported that the FBI queried over 19,000 donors to a congressional campaign. The FBI also has run numerous improper queries of social advocates, religious community leaders, and even individuals who provide tips or who are victims of crime. Five million warrantless searches by the FBI of Americans' private communications is 5 million too many. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.

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

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career and legacy of Washington State Representative Frank Chopp. Representative Chopp is leaving the Washington State Legislature after three decades of committed service to the people of the 43rd Legislative District. Representative Chopp's impressive tenure also included 20 years of service as the Washington State House Speaker. I am proud to have worked alongside Representative Chopp and witnessed his strength of character firsthand during my time as a Washington State Senator. Many of the strides that the State of Washington has made in support of workers' right to organize, critical infrastructure development, access to housing, immigration, expanded healthcare, and educational equity can be attributed to Representative Chopp's exceptional public service. He has been a relentless champion for low-income and working people across our state, doggedly pursuing every single opportunity to provide more affordable housing and safety net services. Thanks to Representative Chopp's career and many accomplishments, thousands of Washingtonians have access to opportunity and the pursuit of the American Dream. I am very grateful for his incredible service and confident that he will be a staunch advocate for working families as he returns to his roots as a community organizer. His leadership will serve as a model for years to come.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. For the second time in less than 2 months, with another shutdown looming, we are wasting our time on a meaningless immigration resolution full of empty rhetoric whose sole purpose seems to be to justify Republicans' lack of desire to address solutions for our broken immigration system. How did we get here, Mr. Speaker? Earlier this Congress, House Republicans passed their cruel, inhumane, and unworkable border bill, H.R. 2. Republicans continue to say that H.R. 2 is the only way to secure the border, and they continue to say that Democrats have refused to bring H.R. 2 up in the Senate. In fact, that bill has since failed twice to pass the United States Senate, receiving just 32 votes a few weeks ago. That means there are a lot of Republicans over there in the Senate who didn't vote for H.R. 2. After insisting that the only way to address the border was through harsh border security legislation and holding Ukraine aid hostage, Republicans even managed to get some Democrats to agree to a border bill in the Senate that was written largely by the Senate's second-most conservative Republican Senator, a bill that Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called the toughest border bill in 30 years. What happened to that bill? Donald Trump said he didn't want to do anything to help the border in an election year because he wants immigration to be out there as a campaign issue. Other Republicans said it out loud as well, saying they didn't want ``to do too damn much . . . to help a Democrat.'' Folding to the cult of Donald Trump, and just hours after the 370- page text of the bill was released, Speaker Johnson declared the bill ``dead on arrival'' in the House. The rank and file fell in line, and the Senate bill died before the metaphorical ink was even dry. Republicans showed clearly what we Democrats have been saying over and over again, that they don't want to do anything that would help address the issues of a broken immigration system that we face. Instead of solving the problem, my colleagues on the other side want to continue to weaponize the border as a political issue for this election year. The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that the situation at the border is directly linked to the fact that our legal immigration system has been left in chaos because it has not been modernized in 30 years to meet the needs of our country, our economy, and our families. When the legal process is so backed up that it takes decades for legal residents to get their children into the country, when employers simply can't get people they need to hire approved because there is a backlog of 2 million people who haven't been processed, or when we have so few immigration judges that asylum seekers wait over 8 years to get their cases heard, then people give in to unscrupulous actors, including the cartels, which promise them that if they pay them a boatload of money, they can get them in by going to the border. Until you fix the legal immigration system so that it works and update the caps and the quotas, you will continue to see large numbers of migrants at the border. You cannot fix the border without fixing the underlying system, and you certainly cannot fix it with only harsh immigration policy. Speaker Johnson and others have been caught in their own trap. They refuse to give President Biden the resources that we need to process people more quickly. They voted against more money to secure the border with more technology and equipment that Border Patrol agents have told us that they need. They even voted against more money for more agents at the border. To hide their hypocrisy, they are now claiming that the President can just ``secure the border'' through harsh executive actions alone, no action by Congress necessary. Today's resolution is just another ham-fisted attempt to weaponize the issue at the border, and it is filled with misinformation. The resolution alleges that the Biden administration is not removing people fast enough, yet in the 8 months since ending title 42, despite some of our due process concerns, this administration has removed or returned over half a million people, roughly equivalent to the number of people removed and returned by the Trump administration in all of fiscal year 2019. The resolution states that the administration ``could comply with the mandatory detention statutes of the Immigration and Nationality Act,'' which no administration, including the Trump administration, has ever complied with because no Congress has ever appropriated the extraordinary levels of funding that such compliance would require. The resolution complains that the President isn't using the suspension of entry authority in section 212(f) of the INA, but Republicans want to forget that President Trump tried to do exactly that in November 2018 and was stopped by the courts. Even the Supreme Court refused to intervene and lift the lower court injunction. Enforcement-only policies do not stop people from crossing the border. In fact, when former President Trump implemented the remain in Mexico policy early in 2019, that summer, we saw some of the highest levels of migration of the entire Trump administration. When President Trump used title 42 to turn back all border crossers, encounters between the ports of entry actually shot up, not down. Cartels made money hand over fist by providing people with multiple entry attempt packages. One individual was apprehended over 40 times alone, just one individual. In fact, from February 1, 2017, to December 31, 2020, the duration of Donald Trump's Presidency, illegal border crossings went up by over 300 percent. People do not make the arduous, dangerous journey here on a whim. They do it because they are often fleeing for their lives or are desperate to escape an unlivable situation in their home country. Because of that, they will continue to come, no matter how many draconian policies they may have to face once they arrive. The way we can deal with that is to have a system that actually works inside the United States, legal pathways for people to come to this country. The way to fix the border is to modernize our current immigration system so that it works to provide people with different opportunities and abilities to apply to be with their families or come here to work or flee war or torture and have their applications and claims processed in a timely way. We have already seen that when we provide workable ways for people to seek entry and refuge, they will use them, and encounters between ports of entry fall dramatically. This resolution shows once again that Republicans don't want to do anything to fix the border. This is a resolution that literally does absolutely nothing, changes not one single policy that is on the books. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my colleagues that no President has ever been able to detain everybody that is required by law because we have never appropriated that amount of money. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, while you may not know it from some of the language being used today, we are debating an immigration resolution that is nonbinding. That means it does absolutely nothing. It is full of empty rhetoric, but it makes no actual policy changes to address the outdated immigration system. It does not a single thing other than take up time for debate on this floor when we should be working on making sure that our government doesn't shut down. Rather than debating meaningless resolutions, we should be exploring how to meaningfully reform the broken immigration system to expand lawful immigration to the United States given the documented benefits that it 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. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan entity, recently released a report finding that recent immigrants who join the workforce will add $1 trillion in revenue to our country's GDP between 2023 and 2034, and $7 trillion overall to our GDP. 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, 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 and bipartisan legislation to address the problems in our immigration system, we are wasting our time on resolutions like the one before us today. It cannot be clearer: Republicans are simply not interested in solutions. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan), who is the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Pete Carroll's contributions to the Seattle Seahawks and the people of Seattle during his 14-year tenure as head coach. Throughout his tenure, the Seahawks had a 137-89-1 regular season record, 10 playoff appearances and a Super Bowl XLVIII victory to conclude the unforgettable 2013 season. Coach Carroll prioritized a positive team culture that he described as ``. . . trying to help people find their best, one person at a time.'' His exemplary leadership philosophy has been referenced and used to develop mindset training for Air Force cadets and for companies throughout Washington State. I would also like to commend Coach Carroll's service to the Pacific Northwest through his Amplify Voices initiative and philanthropic efforts. Coach Carroll is the winningest coach in the history of the Seattle Seahawks and has made a significant impact in our community--both on and off the field--over the past 14 years. On behalf of Washington's 7th Congressional District, I would like to recognize Pete Carroll's work as head coach of the Seattle Seahawks and his many accomplishments.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution to impeach Secretary Mayorkas. This resolution is as ridiculous as it is dangerous. It has no evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. Are we really debating impeaching a Cabinet Secretary because House Republicans don't like the policies that he advances under a democratically elected President? Far from alleging true high crimes and misdemeanors, this resolution relies on the same tired and untrue Republican talking points that Democrats have demonstrated for months are not true. With this Marjorie Taylor Greene sham impeachment resolution, the majority is bending to the will of the most extreme members of their Conference simply because they don't like the policies that Secretary Mayorkas is pursuing. Secretary Mayorkas is an excellent and dedicated public servant, working tirelessly to protect our national security and to address a broken immigration system. This Republican Congress, the least productive Congress in the history of the United States, having passed only 27 bills that have been signed into law, despite over 700 votes in this body, is simply trying to distract the American people from the fact that they are not doing a single thing to address the lives of ordinary Americans across this country. I keep thinking that the House cannot debase itself further, Mr. Speaker, but it appears that we have not reached rock bottom yet. Vote ``no'' on this sham of an impeachment.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Aneelah Afzali, who is stepping down after over seven years of service as the Executive Director of the American Muslim Empowerment Network of the Muslim Association of Puget Sound (MAPS-AMEN). Aneelah founded MAPS-AMEN in December 2016 to combat rising islamophobia and empower the Pacific Northwest Muslim American community. I was proud to bring Aneelah as my guest to the 2017 State of the Union Address during my first year in Congress. Her story as a Muslim American woman of color is truly the American story. Aneelah's presence demonstrated to President Trump that he could not silence the patriotism and resolve of people in this country based on their race, religion or country of origin. Her continued organizing over the next seven years impacted the lives of thousands and exemplified her commitment to the realization of a just world. Throughout her career, Aneelah's work with faith and non-faith communities has built bridges across religious, racial, cultural and political divides. Aneelah currently serves on a number of governing and advisory boards. Through this service, she emphasizes intersectionality and equity within the contexts of a wide array of issues such as gun violence prevention, racial justice, immigration reform and educational equity. She also continues to work with the Washington State Refugee Coordinator to welcome and resettle of Afghan refugees. She is a true community activist, interfaith leader, and civil rights advocate. Aneelah's particular combination of brilliance, commitment to organizing and community, tenacity and strategic ability has been a true gift to our region and our people. She has inspired and celebrated the leadership of countless others, and of regular community members taking action and recognizing the power of their voices. Her integrity and values underlie everything, and she has never wavered from those no matter how challenging the situation. I have been continually inspired by Aneelah's work to combat hate and create a more equitable society. As she continues her work to empower communities in new ways, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating Aneelah's many accomplishments and contributions to our country. On behalf of Washington's 7th Congressional District, I thank Aneelah for her partnership, service to the people of the Pacific Northwest and dedication to the fight for justice.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6976. Once again, the majority is wasting our time by putting forward a piece of legislation that has zero chance of becoming law and that is extraordinarily broad. No one condones driving under the influence. We should do everything we can to prevent people from getting behind the wheel while intoxicated, but this bill, designed to scapegoat and denigrate immigrants, will not solve the serious problem of DUIs. Public safety threats, including those who have been convicted of serious DUI offenses, are already inadmissible and removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and this bill would not change or enhance that. Under the INA, a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude where the punishment can be for a year or longer makes an individual deportable. Courts have ruled over and over again that serious DUI offenses that put others at risk are CIMTs and make the perpetrators deportable. But this bill isn't about serious offenses, Mr. Speaker. Far from it. The bill says that a conviction for a single DUI offense, misdemeanor, or felony makes you instantly deportable and an admission to such a offense makes you instantly inadmissible. No questions asked. I can understand, maybe, the appeal of something that sounds like a zero-tolerance policy, but let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, if we had that kind of policy here in the House of Representatives, there would be several Members that would not be Members of this Chamber. Moreover, by including every single type of DUI offense, this bill would make someone deportable for not driving under the influence. That is because States have a wide variety of opinions on what is a DUI. For example, Arizona's DUI statute allows people to be charged with a DUI if they are intoxicated and have ``physical control'' of their vehicle. The Ninth Circuit found that the breadth of this statute means--and I am quoting here, ``One may be convicted under it for sitting in one's own car in one's own driveway with the key in the ignition and a bottle of beer in one's hand.'' Because of this, the Ninth Circuit determined that a conviction under this statute was insufficient to count as a deportable offense. As the court put it, ``Drunken driving is despicable. Having physical control of a car while drinking is not''--their words, not mine. As many places across the country experience cold spells in the last week or so, there are States that would allow prosecution of someone simply if they were sitting in their car with the heat on while inebriated even if it was in their own driveway. Current law allows judges to use their discretion to look at the broader facts of the case. This bill would strip that discretion away from them and would mandate that even someone whose only crime was sitting in a parked car while inebriated must be deported. Let's not forget that deportability grounds, like the one that this bill would create, impact immigrants who are here lawfully, those who my colleagues always like to say, ``came the right way.'' By the way, Mr. Speaker, I am one of those. I came here to this country at 16 years old. It took me 17 years to get my citizenship, and here I am as a proud Member of the United States House of Representatives. Are we really saying that we think the best use of our very limited Federal Government resources is to work on deporting a green card holder who decided to sleep in their car rather than drive home drunk from a bar? A green card holder not trying to drive drunk, just trying to stay warm? I certainly don't think that is a good use of our resources. It is certainly not a good use of our time on this floor. But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made it clear that they are not interested in sensible solutions, just in sensationalism. This bill is another example of that. Also, I hope my colleagues will stop referring to people as illegals. People are human beings. They have different statuses. Some are undocumented. If you want to say some are illegal, but let's not call human beings illegal. I am tired of that language. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.