Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this Nation is awash in guns. It is the only Nation where we have, time after time after time, school shootings, where we aren't even surprised at mass shooting events in schools. We are the only Nation that has mass shooting events because of our lax gun laws, because we are awash in guns. Mr. Lawler says we should prosecute people who use guns in crimes. I agree. We certainly should. We certainly should do that, and if the people of New York aren't, they should. I can't comment on the New York laws. I haven't been in the legislature in 32 years. Mr. Lawler has been there more recently. The fact of the matter is, this country is awash in guns, and Mr. Jordan says that a left-winger attempted to assassinate former President Trump. We don't know that. The person who attempted to assassinate him, we know, researched the whereabouts of former President Trump. He researched the whereabouts of President Biden. He seemed to want to kill somebody, and the evidence seems to point out that the reason he attacked Trump and not Biden was because Trump was holding a rally near where he was. However, the fact is he is dead, and we don't know. We certainly don't know his political opinions. In any event, this country is awash in guns. While this bill is a good bill, we should equally protect our Presidential candidates, whether they are the incumbent President or the would-be President and Vice-Presidential candidates. The fact is that Presidential candidates and all of us are less safe because this country is awash in guns, and it is the only country in the world--I shouldn't say that--there are countries where genocide is being committed, like Darfur in Sudan, but it is one of the only countries in the world awash in guns. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres), the cosponsor of this bill.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 9106, the Enhanced Presidential Security Act of 2024, requires the Secret Service to apply the same standards for determining the number of agents required to protect Presidents, Vice Presidents, and major Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates. It also directs the Secret Service to conduct a review of the provision of protection provided to these individuals and to report its findings and recommendations to Congress. I support this legislation to ensure that the Secret Service has the tools, resources, and procedures necessary to keep our highest elected officials and candidates safe, which is critical to our democratic system of government. In advancing this legislation, Republicans are hoping to distract from the common denominator in every successful assassination of a U.S. President, as well as the attempted assassination of President Reagan and the attempted assassination of former Presidents and Presidential candidates Theodore Roosevelt and Donald Trump. In every single one of these events, the weapon used was a gun. The fact is that the work of the Secret Service is made infinitely more difficult by our lax gun laws. This Congress, the Republican majority has repeatedly sought to further weaken our gun laws, endangering our children, our law enforcement officers, our communities, and even their own Presidential candidate. Last year, after a mass shooter killed six people, including three children, at a school in Nashville, Republicans fought to make sure everyone could continue to acquire the accessory that shooter used in circumvention of the National Firearms Act. Earlier this year, our Republican colleagues cheered as the Supreme Court, stacked with Republican nominees, struck down the regulation of bump stocks, allowing the accessory used in the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history to again be available to the public without even a background check. When the Senate tried to bring up legislation to again regulate bump stocks, Senate Republicans blocked it. Similar legislation in the House has just one Republican cosponsor, and the Republican majority has refused to advance it. Just today, Republicans used their control of the Judiciary Committee to advance a bill that would weaken the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, reinvigorate the black market for guns, and reopen the online and private sale loophole. That legislation would make it so that convicted felons, domestic abusers, and other dangerous persons who are prohibited from possessing a gun could easily get one without a background check. It would make it so that unlicensed sellers could, once again, profit from endangering our communities. It doesn't stop there. Not only have they sought to unravel our gun laws through legislation and our courts, but our Republican colleagues have also sought to defund the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the primary agency tasked with enforcing our gun laws, including by helping State and local law enforcement solve violent crimes and keep guns out of the wrong hands. The cumulative effect of these efforts is clear. We know from headline after headline that it is far too easy for violent individuals to get a gun and end a life or many lives in a matter of seconds. That is true whether the attacker targets schoolchildren, a domestic partner, a house of worship, or a Presidential candidate. The challenges faced by the Secret Service would be vastly diminished if we passed any one of our many proposals to keep guns out of the wrong hands, but over and over, Republicans have prioritized access to deadly weapons over the safety of our communities. I support this legislation because the Secret Service must be able to protect our highest elected officials and candidates, but this legislation will do nothing to make the rest of us any safer or change the fact that gun violence continues to take the lives of more than 100 Americans every single day. As Republicans yet again rush headlong toward a government shutdown, unable to even manage the most basic aspects of governing, and as they continue to oppose every action to prevent gun violence, Democrats will continue to fight to make our communities safer for every American. Mr. Speaker, I nonetheless urge my colleagues to support this modest legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, this amendment requires the Department of Homeland Security to provide an annual report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees listing all the jurisdictions that failed to comply with a detainer request or inform the Department about the release of an individual. It is important for us to take a step back and remember what this bill is about. This bill is intending to strip Federal funding from jurisdictions that have ``sanctuary'' policies. I think a report like this would be quite illuminating for Members across the aisle because it would show Republicans just how many of their own constituents are being harmed with their own legislation. Communities in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, just to name a few, would lose out on funding for central services, like public schools, infrastructure, and policing. Yes, I think this report would help show exactly how damaging this legislation is, and, therefore, I do not oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to get into a debate over the Biden administration's immigration policy. That is a separate debate that is happening. The fact of the matter is that this bill would take virtually all Federal funds away from many States and many cities in this country. A sanctuary jurisdiction is ineligible to receive any Federal funds that the sanctuary jurisdiction intends to use for the benefit, including the provision of food, shelter, healthcare services, legal services, and transportation of aliens who are present in the United States without lawful status. Aliens present in the United States without lawful status use our roads and highways, so no road and highway money for all the people who are born who are here. Aliens who are here go to schools, so no funding for education. Aliens who are here go to hospitals when they are sick, so no funding for healthcare. This makes no sense. This bill would take large amounts of money and virtually all Federal funds in fact away from many States in the Union. Mr. Ogles says it would leave more money for Tennessee. I don't know whether that is true or not, but it would take virtually all Federal funds away from most States, and frankly as a Representative from New York which would lose all Federal funds, I wouldn't vote for a nickel for Tennessee in that case. That is because all Americans, whether in Tennessee or New York or Pennsylvania or Illinois, should be treated equally and not sacrificed on the altar of someone's opinion of immigration policy. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, again, this bill would take funds away not from illegal immigrants only; it would take funds away from everybody in many States and many cities. It would take virtually all funds for police; virtually all funds for highways, bridges, and roads; and virtually all funds for health and hospitals. Most of the people who would suffer under this bill are American citizens. The Republicans say: So what? They have made the choice to be a sanctuary space. American citizens have this choice. They have the right to make decisions. That is what self-government is all about, and this bill comes along and says, let's take away the right of all of the people of New York, of California, of Utah, of North Dakota, and of Illinois to make decisions about their government. They are not really Americans. Let's take those rights away. It is pernicious, and this amendment would say: Don't even give them the time to do it, and don't even give the Federal agencies the time to adjust their policies to do it. This makes no sense. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes a bad bill even worse. The underlying legislation is already dangerous and overly broad. It would prevent so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, in some cases entire States, from receiving any Federal funds that might benefit undocumented immigrants, resulting in drastic cuts to education, transportation, law enforcement, and healthcare. To make matters worse, this amendment would force this bill into effect within 60 days of passage. So even if States and localities wanted to change their policies to comply with this bill, they likely would not be able to do so in time. Many State legislatures are only in session for parts of the year. The legislature for my State of New York, for example, is only in session 6 months out of the year and does not convene again until January 2025. There has been no consultation with the relevant agencies to determine if this short timeline is feasible, not only to determine every sanctuary jurisdiction, but also what funds and programs are impacted. This amendment makes this dangerous bill even more absurd. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Chairman, as we get closer to the end of our fiscal year with no resolution in sight, we are wasting our time with these absurd bills. I know that Members of this Chamber have very mixed feelings about appropriations bills and the earmarks that go along with them, but only in this backwards Congress would Members think that stripping their constituents of Federal funding is good policy. This legislation, which offers no solutions and would serve only to punish our communities, is opposed by law enforcement, organized labor, and civil and immigrant rights organizations. Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bowman).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, once again, I point out that what everyone thinks of the Biden administration's immigration policies, the only effect of this bill would be to take all Federal funds away from States like New York, California, North Dakota, Utah. Again, for Mr. Molinaro, who represents New York, he will have to explain to his constituents why he thinks all Federal funds should be taken away from New York. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia), a new member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let's be real. The reason these migrants are in New York is because they were bused there involuntarily by Governor Abbott of Texas. Mr. LaLota's bill would remove from New York all Federal funding for schools, all funding for transportation, because it says that in a sanctuary State or city, anything that may benefit migrants will not be paid. As I said in my opening remarks, roads benefit migrants like anybody else, so no funding for roads, bridges, and highways. Schools benefit migrants like anybody else, so no funding for the schools. This bill would essentially take all Federal funding away from New York State. Why Mr. LaLota would introduce a bill to take basically all Federal funding away from our joint State of New York is a question his constituents are going to have to address in 2 months. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, rather than bring up an immigration bill that attempts to secure our border or address the broken immigration system, the Republican majority has brought us a bill that would simply bankrupt States and localities that have chosen a different path on immigration than the Republican agenda. I am not surprised that this bill offers no solutions, though. Republicans have made it very clear that they are more interested in trying to scapegoat immigrants and score cheap political points, especially in these weeks leading up to the election, than in working to solve problems. This legislation would prevent so-called sanctuary jurisdictions--in some cases entire States, like New York, California, and North Dakota-- from receiving any Federal funds that might ``benefit'' undocumented immigrants, resulting in drastic cuts to education, transportation, law enforcement, and healthcare. This bill is being rushed to the floor without following regular order. Given how poorly written this bill is, it is clear why its supporters might have wanted to shield it from greater scrutiny. The title of the bill implies that it is narrowly crafted and targeted at Federal funds for undocumented immigrants in sanctuary jurisdictions. In reality, however, its impact would be much, much wider. It would target not only States led by Democrats like New York, California, and Illinois, but Republican strongholds like Utah and North Dakota, and its impact would be felt across the country. Let's think about how this bill would affect our communities. For example, local police protect the public. They do not check a person's immigration status when responding to a call for help or answering a 911 call. As a result, under this bill, State and local police forces will lose millions of dollars in Byrne JAG grants from the Department of Justice, one of the main ways that the Federal Government supports police equipment purchases, training, and officer salaries. Likewise, States are required by law to provide students with a K-12 public education regardless of immigration status. As such, States receive billions of dollars from the Department of Education to fund K- 12 education. Under this bill, any so-called sanctuary jurisdiction would lose this funding for all its students, regardless of their immigration status. One more example that highlights how truly absurd this bill is: Last year, the Federal Government provided the States of California and New York, both of which are considered sanctuary jurisdictions under this bill, with $5 billion and $2.3 billion respectively to build and maintain highways, bridges, and pedestrian infrastructure. This funding benefits all of the States' residents, including undocumented immigrants, which puts the funding at risk under this bill. My Republican colleagues will argue that we are reading the bill too broadly, but we know this is exactly what Republicans want to do. The Trump administration has previously tried to condition Department of Justice funding on States changing their sanctuary city policies. Further, this concept is straight out of Project 2025, which specifically calls on a potential future Trump administration to try to coerce States and localities into adopting anti-immigrant policies by withholding Federal funds. Republicans used the term ``sanctuary city'' the same way that Donald Trump tells stories about immigrants eating cats and dogs. They want their constituents to be afraid of immigrants and to imply that some cities harbor criminals and refuse to comply with Federal law. The truth is, in some cities, gaining the trust of immigrant communities is a key component of good policing. The Major Cities Chiefs Association argues that when local police are viewed as colluding with immigration authorities, they may spur ``increased crime against immigrants in the broader community, create a class of silent victims, and eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or preventing future terroristic acts.'' Following this guidance, many cities across the country have adopted policies that limit contact between local police and Federal immigration agencies. However, regardless of how someone may feel about sanctuary jurisdictions and community trust policies, the answer is not a blunt instrument that claws billions of dollars away from these States and localities. Our constituents send us here to fight for their interests, not to take away funds they depend on. This is a dangerous and overly broad bill. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this partisan bill does nothing to combat the BDS movement. Rather, it seeks to codify the policy of labeling products that come from West Bank settlements as made in Israel. In truth, such action is a backhanded attempt to illuminate a congressional green light for Israeli annexation of area C of the West Bank. Let's be clear. This measure is aimed at undermining American support for a two-state solution and, therefore, the Biden-Harris administration's critical and delicate efforts at diplomacy in the region. Mr. Speaker, as a lifelong Zionist and a deeply committed Jew, I take Israel's safety and security incredibly seriously, so seriously that I believe that Israel should not be used as a partisan football to advance an electoral agenda. Bringing this legislation to the floor is a Republican politically motivated misadventure to force Democrats to oppose a bill with ``anti- BDS'' in the title weeks before an election. Republicans are seeking to use the United States' House of Representatives to strengthen the foreign policy legacy of a desperate former President Trump in the lead-up to November. Mr. Speaker, we should not stand for it. I am sick and tired of the Republicans' blatantly bad-faith maneuvers to further politicize Israel, especially as we approach the 1-year anniversary of the horrific attack of October 7, the deadliest day in Jewish history since the Holocaust. We deserve better, Mr. Speaker. The American people deserve better. The Israeli and Palestinian people deserve better. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues not to take the bait and to oppose this bill.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, here we are again debating a bill that is another attempt by the majority to scapegoat and fearmonger about immigrants. This legislation purports to add new grounds of inadmissibility and deportability for sexual offenses, adds a new ground of inadmissibility for domestic violence and other related offensives, and expands the current grounds for deportability for domestic violence. Sexual offenses and domestic violence are serious crimes, and if this bill fixed some gap in current law, I would have no problem supporting this legislation, but that is not the case here. In reality, the redundancies in this bill all but ensure that no additional dangerous individuals would face immigration consequences if it were to become law. Instead, the overly broad definition and lack of any waiver authority in this bill would result in extremely harsh and unintended consequences, including the removal of survivors of domestic violence. Let's be very clear: All serious sexual offenses are already grounds for deportability and inadmissibility. For example, an individual is rendered deportable if they are convicted of an aggravated felony, which includes rape, sexual abuse of a minor, or a crime of violence, which is defined as any ``offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person.'' Individuals who are convicted, or admit committing the act, of a crime involving moral turpitude, or a CIMT, are already subject to inadmissibility. Crimes in which there is intent to cause bodily harm have long been considered CIMTs. As such, people who are convicted or admit committing an act of any crime where there is an intent to cause bodily harm like sexual assaults are already inadmissible. Where this bill has serious problems is in the sections relating to domestic violence. Under current law, people are rendered deportable if they are convicted of domestic violence and other related crimes and can be deemed inadmissible if they commit the acts or are convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, where the domestic violence or related offense has intent to cause bodily harm. The crime of domestic violence is already well covered by current law. However, this bill attempts to significantly expand the definition of domestic violence to include the Violence Against Women Act definition that is used for grants and funding. This is a much broader definition that was never meant to be used in criminal law. We know that because the definition explicitly says it covers conduct ``that may or may not constitute criminal behavior.'' The definition for domestic violence under Federal criminal law focuses on physical force. This broader VAWA-based definition sweeps in a wider range of behaviors that domestic violence organizations say will implicate survivors who have used violence in self-defense or who were accused by their abusers and were either unable to defend themselves or pled guilty to avoid having to go through the court process. The bill would also make it less likely that immigrant communities will report incidents of domestic violence. We recently celebrated the 30th anniversary of the passage of VAWA, and we should continue our work to combat domestic violence, but this legislation would actually set back our efforts to protect survivors. That is why over 200 national and local groups, as part of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, the experts in the field, oppose this legislation. I think we ought to listen to them. We need to work together to solve our immigration problems, but this bill takes us in the wrong direction. It attempts to fearmonger and demonize immigrants, just like the disgusting and absurd comments by former President Trump and many of his colleagues related to Haitians eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, a claim that has been thoroughly debunked, including by the Republican mayor of Springfield and Republican Governor DeWine of Ohio. Those comments have led to Springfield City Hall and several of its schools being evacuated and closed and multiple hospitals being locked down due to bomb threats. My Republican colleagues may think that their words and lack of care have no impact, but sadly, we have seen that they can set off a deadly chain reaction. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I must say I find the gentlewoman's references to the Harris or the Biden-Harris war on women ironic coming from the Representative of a political party, the Republican Party, whose abortion policies have caused countless women to die, to bleed out while the doctors wait to operate, fearing felonies because of the anti-abortion laws in various States. I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this bill does not close any gaps in the law, does not fix any of the myriad problems with our immigration system or the southern border, and would actually harm the very people it purports to protect. It is another excuse for the Republican majority to play politics with immigration without doing any of the hard work involved in finding bipartisan solutions. I urge Members to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, due to a family health concern, I was not in Washington, D.C. on September 9, 2024, and, as a result, I missed two votes. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 401, and NAY on Roll Call No. 402.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1398. This legislation, which would establish a so-called CCP Initiative within the national security division of the DOJ, is simply a rehash of the Trump administration's failed China Initiative by another name. Resurrecting this misguided program, as this bill would do, represents a clear step backwards. When the Trump Justice Department launched what it called the China Initiative in 2018, it claimed its purpose was to counter efforts by the Chinese Government to steal American intellectual property. This might have been a laudable goal, but what actually resulted was little more than a series of unsupportable cases against Chinese academics at the height of their careers that left their reputations in tatters. The government was forced to drop many of these prosecutions. Others failed in court. Even more were overturned on appeal. No matter how you look at the data, a postmortem analysis shows that the China Initiative was an undisputed failure. From the flimsy cases brought under this program to the so-called brain drain of scientists of Chinese descent who left American research labs, the China Initiative hurt our interests here at home. The Trump DOJ devoted significant resources to targeting professors of Chinese descent working in the United States, diverting crucial funding and personnel that could have been used to combat actual economic espionage and trade secret theft. However, the China Initiative did not just waste valuable resources. If you were a person of Chinese descent working in American higher education, you were a suspect. Rather than keeping America safe, the China Initiative divided workplaces, ruined careers, and contributed to anti-Asian hate at the height of the pandemic. The resulting chilling effect hampered American innovation by discouraging foreign talent from moving to American companies and disincentivizing Chinese researchers from accepting positions at our institutions of higher learning. It is foolhardy to punish China by harming American innovation, but by discouraging researchers from working here, that is exactly what the Trump administration did with the China Initiative. Countries around the world send their best and brightest to the United States for education and to perform valuable research in our academic institutions. Instead of welcoming their contributions to our economy and to our society, programs like the China Initiative encouraged them to take their training and their talents elsewhere. We cannot quantify those missed opportunities. There is no way to know what inventions never came to be, but we can realize when we made a mistake and move on. This bill would prevent us from doing so. Despite its well documented failures, reviving the China Initiative is a key plank of the ultraconservative Project 2025 agenda, the blueprint for a potential new Trump administration. Republicans cannot credibly argue that resurrecting this program is about keeping Americans and our business secrets safe because we know that racially profiling professors of Chinese descent was unsuccessful. It did, however, contribute to an us versus them mentality that divided Americans and heightened tensions across the country. It is particularly disappointing that we are engaging in this partisan exercise because the fact is that Democrats and Republicans largely agree that China poses a threat to the United States. There are bipartisan bills ready for markup, ones that could pass on suspension today, but instead the majority has chosen to take up bills that divide us. Since the end of the China Initiative, the DOJ has embraced a broader strategy to counter threats from hostile nations, not just China, but Iran, North Korea, and Russia. For example, the Disruptive Technology Strike Force has been lauded by both sides of the aisle for doing what the China Initiative failed to do. It collaborates across agencies to prevent nation-state actors from illicitly acquiring our most sensitive technology by successfully investigating and prosecuting illegal procurement networks. We are on the right path to protecting our Nation's secrets and keeping Americans safe. This legislation would take us in the opposite direction. I oppose this legislation. I encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.