Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment expands the types of weapons officers are allowed to purchase to include all retired firearms. The amendment radically extends the bill and runs counter to its original purpose. This amendment would allow semiautomatic assault weapons, sniper rifles, and military-grade weaponry to be purchased without a background check. While Federal law enforcement has a need for these weapons, they have no place in our communities. Though the amendment excludes machine guns, it does not exclude other firearms subject to heightened regulation under the National Firearms Act, such as short-barreled rifles and even grenade launchers. The Federal Government should not be selling these dangerous weapons to people operating in their civilian capacity. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it, as well. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the provision that the gentleman refers to refers only to machine guns. It does not exclude other firearms, as I mentioned, such as short-barreled rifles and even grenade launchers, and these are too dangerous. We should not be selling these dangerous weapons to people operating in their civilian capacity. That is why this amendment is dangerous and radically changes the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, section 5845, definitions, reads as follows: ``(a) Firearm, the term `firearm' means (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machine gun''--which is the only thing the gentleman excludes from his amendment--``(7) any silencer (as defined . . . ); and (8) a destructive device,'' like a grenade launcher, like a grenade. Therefore, when I say that this amendment would ban only machine guns but would permit all these other things, including grenades and weapons of destruction, it is right here in the statute. The gentleman's amendment would permit all of these. Those are the kinds of weapons. Grenade launchers and short-barreled rifles should not be in the possession of civilians, even retired police officers. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let's be clear: Assaulting a law enforcement officer is a serious offense and cannot be tolerated in the United States. It is also largely already a deportable offense.

Mr. NADLER. If this bill, the so-called Protect Our Law Enforcement with Immigration Control and Enforcement Act, or the POLICE Act of 2023, closed an actual gap in current law and made our country safer, Democrats would gladly support it. Unfortunately, this bill represents another unserious attempt by my Republican colleagues to target and scapegoat immigrants and to score cheap, political points for National Police Week while doing nothing to actually protect law enforcement officers. It is important to remember who this legislation is targeting. This is not about undocumented immigrants who are, of course, already removable, and this is not about people who are seeking to enter the United States. This is about people who have come here the so-called ``right way.'' We are talking about lawful, permanent residents. People have put down roots in our communities, many of whom have U.S. citizen spouses and children and have truly established themselves here in the United States. Many of these individuals are eligible to become U.S. citizens today, but this bill would make them deportable without even requiring that they be convicted of a crime, only that the assault or act constituting the assault was committed and that the individual admits to the commission of the act. That throws our whole notion of due process on its head. That is why it is absolutely critical that we adopt Mr. Correa's amendment to close this dangerous loophole. Even if we require a conviction, I am still concerned that the bill is so broad and overinclusive that it could lead to truly absurd results and to the deportation of people who had no intention of ever harming a law enforcement officer. Let me give you three examples of what this bill would do, as drafted: A person walks into a fire, sees a beam about to fall on a firefighter, and pushes the firefighter out of the way. He has committed an act that is an assault on the firefighter who is a peace officer, and he is deportable. A person sees two men fighting on the street and he breaks them up. He pushes them aside, not knowing that one of them is an undercover police officer. He has assaulted the police officer. A Jehovah's Witness is in an ambulance. The EMT reaches over to put a line in to give him a transfusion. The Jehovah's Witness pushes his hand away. He has committed assault on the EMT who is a peace officer and he is, therefore, deportable. Now, Republicans will say that these are far-fetched, absurd examples. The problem is that under the terms of the bill, this would happen. However far-fetched you may think the example, you have to read the bill. Mr. Correa's amendment would correct this. If Mr. Correa's amendment passes, we can support the bill. If it does not, this is a dangerous bill making lawful permanent residents who have been here for many years deportable for no good reasons. For years, we have had a bipartisan understanding that individuals should be deported only for a serious offense, but this bill breaks down that understanding. I hope we will fix the bill's most significant flaw through the amendment process, namely, the Correa amendment. If not, I must recommend that my colleagues oppose this legislation. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, the gentleman from New York referenced our District Attorney Alvin Bragg. As a resident of Manhattan, I must say that I find Alvin Bragg a perfectly fine district attorney, and he is being attacked only because he has secured indictments on 34 counts against Donald Trump, and that is why they are holding him up for criticism. I am very glad that I supported him in the Democratic primary against a number of opponents 2 years ago, and he is doing a fine job, including the 34 indictments he secured against former President Trump, who it appears is also going to be indicted in Washington and in Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal)

Mr. NADLER. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Casar).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, this bill would make someone deportable if they assault a law enforcement officer, a fact that is already largely the case, as it should be. This bill would make it a deportable offense for a legal, permanent resident to merely perform the acts that could be described as a felony. That, as I said before, leads to absurd results. The gentleman may say that that is not the intended result and that wouldn't happen, but you have to read the statute as it reads. These absurd results that I mentioned before--I am not going to repeat them now--would be real unless the Correa amendment is adopted. Then it would solve the infirmities of the bill and we could recommend passage. If that doesn't happen, we cannot. Mr. Chair, I hope we will fix this bill's most glaring flaw by requiring that a person actually be convicted of assault before they are rendered deportable--that is the Correa amendment. If not, I urge all Members to oppose this legislation. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Boebert amendment requires the Department of Homeland Security to make publicly available on its website an annual report on the number of noncitizens deported for assaulting a law enforcement officer. It is important for us to take a step back and remember what this bill is all about. This bill is attempting to add a new avenue for people who are living here lawfully in the United States to be deported. By and large, we are talking about the ability to deport lawful permanent residents, people with green cards. These are people who my Republican colleagues like to say have done things the so-called ``right way.'' I sincerely hope that this report would not be used to further demonize immigrants. However, on its face, I do not find this amendment to be objectionable. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Correa's amendment. Any conviction requirement would greatly improve this bill. No one in this caucus condones serious assaults against law enforcement officers. As written, however, this bill goes well beyond serious offenses to include minor offenses and even actions for which an individual is never charged or convicted. That is right. Under this bill, a conviction is not required. This will lead to bizarre consequences in which someone who had no intent of harming a law enforcement officer but nevertheless committed an act that constituted assault would be deemed deportable. Mr. Chairman, remember the three examples I gave before: pushing a fireman out of the way of a falling beam. That would make the person deportable under this bill. It is important to remember that convictions for serious assaults on law enforcement are already offenses that make someone deportable under current law. In fact, we have a wide variety of criminal grounds for deportation, nearly all of which require a conviction. That is why adding a requirement that an individual be convicted of assaulting a law enforcement officer to become deportable would significantly improve the bill. However, it would not fix all the issues associated with this bill. For example, the bill does not require an intent to cause harm or any physical injury which would sweep in very low-level offenses. Since the bill only impacts people who are here legally, the prospect of deporting longtime members of our communities for very minor offenses is deeply concerning, but the bill would be improved by this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today, the majority has brought forward a cruel, extreme, and unworkable piece of legislation, which would wreck our economy, destroy the asylum system, criminalize visa overstays, send unaccompanied children back to dangerous situations, and jail children indefinitely. Once again, my Republican colleagues show us that they are not interested in finding real solutions to tough issues. This bill attempts to combine a variety of different bills, each one more cruel and heartless than the last into one contradictory and overlapping mess. This bill has no chance of being enacted into law and it is nothing more than pure political theater. My Republican colleagues are trying to take us back to the failed, illegal, and immoral policies of the Trump administration. Former President Trump's radical, inhumane, and racist immigration actions weakened the U.S. economy, undermined our moral standing in the world, and did not make us any safer. While trampling on some of our most deeply held American values, his erratic approach also failed to stem the flow of migrants across our border. Let's be very clear about what this legislation would do. When taken together, this bill serves as a wholesale ban on asylum. No one would be able to seek asylum in the United States if they cross between ports of entry or if they had or could have had even temporary status in a third country. Let me give you an example of what this means. If the Russian dissident Aleksey Navalny, who Putin attempted to poison twice, was somehow released from his prison in Siberia and took a flight to seek political asylum in the United States, but the plane touched down for refueling in Bulgaria, he would have to stay in Bulgaria. He couldn't come to the United States. During the Judiciary Committee's markup, Democrats offered a variety of amendments to exempt the most vulnerable from some of these draconian requirements. This included those fleeing Communist and totalitarian regimes and unaccompanied children, but the majority was not even willing to exempt children under a year old. The one place where we were able to make some bipartisan headway was on the issue of E-Verify. E-Verify is an electronic employment eligibility verification system that began as a voluntary pilot program and is currently used by a small percentage of the Nation's employers. This bill would make that system mandatory for all employers in the United States. Without providing other reforms, however, including any meaningful opportunity for undocumented workers to regularize their status, this title would damage the U.S. economy, harm American workers, and result in billions of dollars in lost government revenue. In particular, mandatory E-Verify would decimate the agriculture industry, putting U.S. farms out of business, shipping millions of American jobs overseas, and increasing U.S. reliance on imported food. Mandatory E-Verify would result in hundreds of thousands of unfilled farm jobs and would leave unpicked crops rotting in the fields as we saw in Georgia in 2011 when a mandatory E-Verify law in the State resulted in over 11,000 farm jobs going unfilled during the peak harvest season. Unfortunately, it appears that some of my Republican colleagues with significant agricultural interest in their districts are now willing to support this draconian legislation. Despite sincere concerns about how this provision would affect their constituents, they have caved to Republican leadership with the mere addition of a sense of Congress. That is pathetic. I have only scratched the surface of the many problems contained in this legislation. I have not even mentioned how this bill strips all protections from unaccompanied children and requires all families who come to our borders seeking protection to be detained indefinitely or the extreme lengths to which it goes to narrow the eligibility grounds for asylum or how this bill would severely restrict this and any future administration's ability to parole individuals into the United States, even going so far as to end the current parole initiatives for Ukrainians fleeing Russia and for certain military families. What this means is that no Ukrainians fleeing the war with Russia would be allowed into this country. It also means that all Ukrainians here after a certain time would have to return to Ukraine, even if the war is still going on. Mr. Speaker, immigration reform is a complicated problem that requires complicated solutions, and an enforcement-only strategy simply doesn't work. Democrats have put forward real proposals, and we stand ready to work with serious Republicans to pass meaningful solutions. Democrats take this humanitarian crisis seriously. Our proposals address the root causes of migration, improve border security, and create additional legal pathways for people to enter the United States lawfully. But Republicans have chosen a narrow path that imposes extreme pain and hardship on the most vulnerable people, while doing nothing to actually solve the problem. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this wrongheaded bill, and I ask the majority to go back to the drawing board. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ivey).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.