Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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, Mr. Scalise and the other Republicans are not serious about solving the problem we all talk about. Mr. Scalise says the solution is H.R. 2, a bill so serious it received 32 votes in the United States Senate, a body with 49 Republican Senators. If the Republicans were sincere and serious about solving this problem, they would vote for the $14 billion that the President has requested to hire more Border Patrol people and more judges so that asylum decisions can be made in weeks and not years, and he wouldn't have the problem of catch and release. If Republicans were serious, they wouldn't have tanked the Senate bill developed in negotiations with principally Senator Lankford, who is considered the second-most conservative Senator in the Senate, and that bill was going to be agreed to until President Trump decided-- former President Trump and hopefully never again President Trump-- decided that he would rather have an issue for the campaign than solve the problem, so he told the Republicans to tank the bill that they had just written. Let's talk about hypocrisy. That is what we are hearing in this Chamber. That is what we hear all the time from a Republican Party that loves the rhetoric, that loves to use the victimhood of people like Laken Riley for political purposes, but this is a Republican Party that does not want to solve this problem, will not take any serious step to solve this problem, and is trying to create a fraud on the American people by pretending that it cares about this problem. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to close where I began, by expressing my deepest condolences to the family of Laken Riley. I only wish that we were debating a bill worthy of her name. Instead, we have the latest Republican press release, a bill that serves as an excuse to target and demonize immigrants while making our country no safer. I hope that my Republican colleagues will change course and choose to work with Democrats and with the administration in a constructive manner that improves our immigration system and makes our border more secure. Until then, I must urge Members to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this esteemed body to honor the late Lloyd Richards, who left an indelible mark on our society through his groundbreaking career as a director, producer, performer, and educator. A giant of the American Theatre, Richards was a groundbreaking talent who smashed the color barrier on Broadway for African American directors and became the first Black director to direct a Broadway play. Before becoming one of the most important figures in American theater during the 20th century, he survived poverty and hardship during the depths of the Great Depression. At the age of only 13, he worked in a barbershop to help put food on the table for his blind mother and his four siblings. During World War II, Richards halted his studies at Wayne University to serve his country in the U.S. Army Air Corps' division of fighter pilots known as the Tuskegee Airmen. He then moved to New York City in 1947, and despite roles for African American actors being incredibly hard to come by, he landed roles on Broadway and on the radio. It was during this time that Richards started his illustrious career as an educator and developed what would become a lifelong friendship with one of his early acting students, the great Sidney Poitier. Richards would go on to direct Poitier in the landmark original production A Raisin in the Sun, which opened at Broadway's Ethel Barrymore Theater on March 11, 1959. The production became an artistic and commercial success on Broadway, and Richards became the first African American to be nominated for the Tony Award for Best Direction. Richards went on to become one of the most respected and innovative directors in the industry. He helped to bring the works of playwrights such as August Wilson, Lorraine Hansberry, and Athol Fugard to the stage, shaping the landscape of American theater in the process. Beyond his contributions to the world of theater, Lloyd Richards was a dedicated and passionate educator. As the dean of the Yale School of Drama, he nurtured and inspired generations of talented artists, instilling in them the values of integrity, hard work, and dedication. I am grateful that thanks to the incredible advocacy of the Committee to Celebrate Lloyd Richards, the corner of 47th Street and Broadway in Manhattan will be co-named ``Lloyd Richards Way'' on June 29, 2024. This is a fitting tribute to a man who dedicated his life to the art of theater and left behind a legacy that continues to inspire and influence artists worldwide. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of Lloyd Richards and in celebrating his contributions to American theater. May his name and his legacy continue to inspire future generations of artists and educators for years to come.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York, the Honorable THOMAS R. SUOZZI, be permitted to take the oath of office today. His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, as dean of the New York delegation, it is my distinct honor to rise today to welcome my good friend Congressman Tom Suozzi back to the people's House. The people of New York's Third Congressional District have elected a Representative with the experience, character, and commitment to solve problems confronting everyday Americans and deliver for his constituents. Tom is also a great family man. He is a devoted father, husband, and public servant who upholds the values instilled in him by his family. He has devoted most of his adult life to public service: first as the mayor of his hometown, Glen Cove, for 8 years; then as the county executive of Nassau County for 8 years, before serving as a United States Congressman for 6 years. From working tirelessly to secure investments for the Northport VA Medical Center in Long Island to helping secure billions in Federal support for New York in pandemic relief and infrastructure funding, Tom's outstanding record in Congress speaks for itself. Tom loves New York, he loves his country, and his love for public service runs deep. He is the kind of person we need serving in this House at this moment, and it gives me great pleasure to reintroduce him as our colleague, the gentleman from New York, Tom Suozzi. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to Mr. Suozzi.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, due to a personal matter, I was not able to vote for the first suspension yesterday. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 32.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the sham impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas. This resolution is filled with false and misleading statements that amount to nothing more than policy disagreements. Even if it were based in truth, however, policy disagreements are not a legitimate basis for impeachment. Impeaching a Cabinet Secretary is serious. Unfortunately, House Republicans are not. This sham impeachment ran roughshod over due process and completely bypassed the Judiciary Committee, the committee of jurisdiction for impeachment. This is not a serious effort, nor is it a serious resolution. Republicans allege that Secretary Mayorkas should be impeached simply because he failed to meet the impossible standards set out in our laws, standards that no administration, not even President Trump's, has ever come close to meeting. For example, they allege that Secretary Mayorkas failed to detain everyone that the law requires to be held in mandatory detention. To do so would require Congress to appropriate over $35 billion a year, a number 10 times higher than President Trump ever requested for detention. That is why the Trump administration released over 500,000 people at the U.S.-Mexico border and released 1.1 million people from immigration detention into the United States. Did we hear calls from the Republicans to impeach Secretaries Kelly, Duke, or Nielsen? Of course not. The resolution also takes aim at the Secretary's use of his parole authority, but Republicans never complained when President Trump used his parole authority for tens of thousands of Cubans and military families. So, what is different now? Could it be that it is an election year and Republicans have no record of accomplishments to run on? With no ideas, no agenda, and no ability to govern, they are cheapening the serious and awesome power of impeachment to score a few cheap political points. That is shameful. Our immigration system has been broken for decades. Impeaching a Cabinet Secretary because you do not like their policies will not repair it. Only bipartisan reform can do that. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill is just another page from the majority's tired old playbook of inventing perceived gaps in the law and providing overly broad legislation to fix them. DUIs are a serious problem. Over 13,000 people died in alcohol impaired driving traffic deaths in 2021, and all of those deaths were preventable. However, instead of working on proven solutions like improving access to public transportation and ride-sharing programs so that people have an alternative to driving drunk, Republicans are laying the blame for this problem at the feet of immigrants. Let me be clear. No one here wants to see individuals who are true threats to public safety eligible for immigration benefits. However, our immigration laws already exclude public safety threats from being able to get visas or legally remain in the country. Under our current laws, this includes those who have committed serious DUI offenses. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a noncitizen who is convicted of or admits to committing a crime involving moral turpitude, or a CIMT, is generally inadmissible. Likewise, a noncitizen who is convicted of a CIMT, where a sentence of 1 year or longer may be imposed, is deportable. There is substantial case law demonstrating that serious DUI offenses are considered CIMTs under current law. DUI where the maximum possible penalty is a year or more and where there is serious bodily harm; hit- and-runs; an aggravated DUI; and a DUI involving driving with knowledge of an invalid, suspended, or revoked license are all CIMTs and are, therefore, already deportable offenses. This means that under current law, the people who are drinking and driving and putting people at risk of harm are already removable. Nonetheless, the majority is not satisfied with this. They want to deport everyone who has ever received any conviction for any DUI offense. Here is the problem with this approach: every State has a different standard for how they define and prosecute DUIs. Some States will charge people with a DUI even if they are not actually driving a car. For example, prosecutors in Virginia convicted a man of DUI who was inebriated and asleep in the driver's seat of his car with the keys in the ignition so he could listen to music in his driveway. This case, in which the driver never even left his driveway or even turned his car all the way on, went all the way to the Virginia Supreme Court. We cannot rely on prosecutorial discretion in this type of case. Under case law, the man in this case would not ultimately be subject to removal based on this conviction if he was a noncitizen. Nevertheless, if this bill were to be enacted, such a conviction would lead to the deportation of even a longstanding green card holder. Remember, Mr. Speaker, we are talking here about longstanding green card holders, not illegal aliens. These are people who entered the country legally, who may have been here for 20 or 30 years, who have American citizen spouses and children. If this bill were enacted, such a conviction of sleeping in your own car inebriated in your own driveway going nowhere would get you deported. If this bill fixed a serious gap in the law, I would be supportive. Nevertheless, this bill doesn't do that. It puts people who are here legally at risk of removal for making even a minor mistake that harmed no one, all at a time when immigration courts have historic backlogs and the Republicans are refusing to provide DHS with the resources it needs to enforce the laws currently on the books. This is purely for show, but I would expect nothing less from a party that has admitted they would rather wait to fix the problems in our immigration system so that President Trump can preserve the issue for his campaign than actually work toward meaningful reform now. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), the ranking Democrat on the Immigration Subcommittee.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the last few speakers on the Republican side spent most of their time not addressing this bill but addressing the general crisis at our southern border. The fact is there is a crisis. We all know that. The fact is that one of the major problems--and Republicans say this all the time, and they are right--is catch and release. Someone is caught or more usually turns themselves in to a Border Patrol officer, claims asylum, and is given a court date 4 years, 5 years down the road. Why? Because we do not have enough asylum officers. We do not have enough asylum judges. President Biden requested $14 billion to increase the number of Border Patrol men and women and to increase the number of asylum judges and immigration judges so that you wouldn't have catch and release; so that people who claimed asylum would have their cases adjudicated in weeks, not in years. Those who are entitled to asylum would be admitted to the country and could work and those who are not could be swiftly removed, deported from the country. Do our Republican colleagues want to do that? No. They don't want to give the President the means of alleviating this problem. They want a campaign issue, and they are very open about it. You have in the Senate a painstakingly negotiated and extraordinarily conservative--so we hear, I haven't seen the text yet--strong immigration bill negotiated by such liberals as Senator Lankford and Senator Graham, and they are going to pass it, in all likelihood. The Republicans in the House say we won't even look at it. Why? Because the former President, President Trump, said don't pass anything. I want a campaign issue. They don't want to solve the problem. They want to keep the problem going as a campaign issue, and they said it themselves. Don't get up here and talk about the problems on the southern border when you won't give this President any of the authority or the means that he seeks to deal with it when you say, as Speaker Johnson said, you are not going to even look at the bill from the Senate because it isn't perfect. Since when do we insist on perfect legislation? Now, Mr. Speaker, let's get to this bill. DUIs are a serious problem, and no one who poses a threat to public safety should be eligible for immigration benefits, but that is already the case under current law. This legislation is a gross overreach that would lead to absurd consequences and deportation for people who pose no threat to our country, such as the examples we heard of someone who, rather than driving drunk, is in his own car inebriated with the key turned on, listening to music in his own driveway, posing a threat to no one. Even for people who have been here many years, with American citizen spouses and children, that would lead to automatic deportation while doing nothing that our laws do not already do to deter people from driving under the influence--driving under the influence as opposed to sitting in their driveway under the influence. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I stated a few minutes ago, I support this amendment. I urge everyone to vote for it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before I address the specifics of this bill, I want to address what we heard from the Speaker a few minutes ago. The Speaker said that section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act cannot be used to ``shut down the border.'' Former President Trump agreed with him. He tried to do exactly what Speaker Johnson says in 2018. That action was immediately enjoined and declared unlawful. You cannot use section 212(f) of the INA to shut down the border, but the Speaker knows this. That is why he had the House pass H.R. 2. If 212(f) were sufficient, why did we need a bill? The Republicans passed H.R. 2, but the Republicans should know that this is a bicameral institution, and there is also a President. H.R. 2 can go nowhere. The Senate won't even look at it, but we know that conservative Republicans in the Senate and Democrats in the Senate have been negotiating for a very, very strong, very powerful, very conservative immigration bill, which they have come up with, much too conservative for many Democrats--I am not sure I am going to vote for it--far more conservative than anything we have considered on the floor besides H.R. 2. Yet, the Speaker says he won't hear of it. Why? Because the former President said he wants the issue. He was very clear, as was Mr. Nehls: Don't pass anything so that former President Trump can campaign on immigration in the fall. Don't solve the problem. Save the problem as a campaign issue. That is what they are doing. If they weren't doing that, they would seriously consider the Senate bill. What is even more pernicious is that they have joined together the close the border issue, the border issue, which is a valid issue, but they have lumped it together with aid to Israel and aid to Ukraine. I was on the steps of the House with the Speaker and many others touting our solidarity with Israel. Yet, what are we going to do? Trump and the Speaker, doing Trump's bidding, don't want us to pass an immigration bill, which they have tied up with aid to Israel and aid to Ukraine. We are not going to aid Israel. We are going to let Putin take over Ukraine. We are not going to send arms to Taiwan. We are not going to send humanitarian aid. We are going to abandon Ukraine. We are going to abandon Israel. We are going to abandon Taiwan. We are going to abandon our Pacific allies. Why? Because President Trump wants a campaign issue on immigration. This is shameful. Shameful. The Speaker knows it to be the case, and I challenge the Speaker to bring the Senate bill to the floor. Let's see what happens. When the Senate passes a very conservative bill, which they seem on track to do, bring it to the floor of the House, and let's see what happens. I bet it passes, but let's see what happens. Mr. Speaker, addressing this bill, let's be clear: Social Security fraud is a serious issue. It is also largely already a deportable offense. If H.R. 6678 closed an actual gap in current law, 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, while doing nothing to fix our immigration system. While I have several concerns with this bill, I would like to focus on the issue of deportability because that is the most troubling aspect of this legislation. H.R. 6678 eliminates the requirement that we first charge and convict a person for Social Security fraud before we make them deportable. This is concerning and stands in stark contrast to most other criminal deportability grounds within our immigration laws. Barring a few exceptions, criminal offenses require a conviction to render a noncitizen deportable. This is especially important given who would be most impacted by this legislation. This section of H.R. 6678 is not about deporting undocumented immigrants who are, of course, already deportable, and it is not about preventing people from entering the United States. The deportability provisions in this legislation target lawful, permanent residents, people who have put down roots in our communities, many of whom have U.S. citizen spouses and children and who have truly established themselves here in the United States. A lot of these individuals are eligible to become U.S. citizens today. This bill would make these people deportable without even requiring that they be convicted of a crime. Do we really want to be deporting lawful, permanent residents without due process and without them having their day in court? Additionally, if this bill were to become law, it would result in absurd consequences. It would actually be easier to deport someone for offenses related to Social Security fraud than it is to deport someone for murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor, because for those crimes, a conviction is required. Is this really what my Republican colleagues are looking to accomplish? For years, Republicans have claimed that they support legal immigration. They are opposed to illegal immigration, as we all are, but they support legal immigration, so they say. By stripping people of their due process and playing political games with this bill, they are showing us that it is all just empty rhetoric. We should be working together in a bipartisan way to modernize our broken immigration system. Instead, we are wasting our time with a bill that has no chance to become law and does nothing to address the real problems facing this country and that destroys due process for legal permanent residents. Members should oppose this overbroad legislation that would deport people who have never even been charged with a crime. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bentz says that the person to be deported has to be shown to have been guilty by clear and convincing evidence. I always thought the standard of proof for a crime was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This just shows again how destructive of due process this bill is. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in closing. This legislation does nothing to improve our immigration system while making a mockery of basic due process. That is why it should be defeated. I urge all Members to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.