Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. As I have repeatedly said, fraud, regardless of whether it is Social Security fraud or fraud related to COVID loans or grants, is a serious issue. This amendment, however, suffers from the same defect as the underlying bill. As written, it would eliminate the requirement that we first charge and convict a person for a fraud offense before we make them deportable. Let's remember who would be most impacted by the deportability provisions in this amendment. This is not about deporting undocumented immigrants, who are, of course, already removable. It is not about preventing people from entering the United States. The deportability provisions in this amendment target lawful permanent residents, people who have put down roots in our communities, many of whom have U.S. spouses and children. 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 any due process? Additionally, this amendment, just like the underlying bill, would lead to absurd consequences. It would actually make it easier to deport someone for fraud related to COVID loans or grants than it is to deport someone for murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor, because for those crimes, a conviction is required. Is that really what the author of this amendment is trying to accomplish here, make it easier to deport people for COVID fraud than for murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor? Is that really what Mr. D'Esposito wants? This is not sound policy, and it makes no sense. I hope my Republicans colleagues will realize how shortsighted this amendment is. I oppose this amendment, and I urge all Members to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the other gentleman from New York has not put forward any evidence that immigrants, documented or undocumented, were involved in defrauding the COVID relief funds. Moreover, everything he said basically was irrelevant to this bill. We are not talking about the southern border crisis. We are not talking about the general policies of the Biden administration or the Trump administration or H.R. 2 or the Senate bill. All of that is beyond the scope of this bill. What we are talking about in this bill is not making, as the gentleman said, illegal immigrants, but lawful permanent residents, deportable for fraud on COVID loans or grants without being convicted of a crime, something you cannot do for lawful permanent residents accused of murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor, because for those things a conviction is required. This bill would set aside due process and say no conviction is required to deport someone for the crime of COVID fraud, although such a conviction is required for much more serious offenses. It makes no sense and it is abhorrent to our legal system to make people have heavy penalties, people who have lived in this country for many years, to be deportable without any due process and without conviction of a crime. For that reason, this amendment and this bill should be defeated. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on October 7, 2023, Hamas committed a horrific assault on innocent civilians in Israel, murdering 1,200 people, including 32 Americans, killing the most Jewish people in a single day since the Holocaust. Even now, Hamas continues to hold innocent men, women, and children in captivity. Not a day goes by that I don't think of the hostages: Of Kfir Bibas, who turned 1 in captivity, and his family, whose lives Hamas has used as a tool of psychological torture; Of U.S. citizens, like Hersh Goldberg-Polin, whose arm was blown off at the Nova music festival, and Keith Siegel, whose wife was released while he remains in Gaza; Of peace activists, like Oded Lifshitz, who spent so much his life helping Palestinians get access to lifesaving healthcare; Of the young women, like Noa Argamani and Agam Berger, who Hamas has used to torment and taunt their parents. Every day since October 7 has been a nightmare from which we have been unable to wake up. It has been far too much suffering, too many lives have been lost, on both sides of the conflict. H.R. 6679 has an important goal, ensuring that no one involved with the planning or commission of the October 7 attacks can enter the United States or receive any immigration benefits. Our current laws already achieve this goal, however. Hamas has been designated as a terrorist organization by the State Department since 1997. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, or the INA, any noncitizen who has engaged in terrorist activity, provided material support to terrorists, or is a member of a terrorist organization, or a group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity is inadmissible to the United States. Furthermore, the national security-related bars in the INA are very broad. To bar an individual, the Secretary of Homeland Security merely needs ``reasonable grounds to believe'' that the applicant presents a risk to national security or is otherwise seeking to engage in ``any unlawful activity'' in the United States. This authority already applies to those who engage in or endorse terrorist activity, as well as those who provide material support to groups that take up arms against government forces. This is an extraordinarily broad provision that has barred even those who are forced to help armed groups. As such, this bill is largely redundant to current law. I certainly support the aim of this legislation. No individual who is involved in these heinous attacks should find refuge in the United States. That is why I intend to support the bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. But I do have some concerns about the drafting of this bill. For decades, when Congress wishes to prevent specific bad actors from entering the United States or accessing an immigration benefit, we have used bipartisan visa sanctions legislation. That approach would have the same effect the majority is attempting to achieve with this bill. Today, however, the majority has chosen to directly amend the INA to impose visa sanctions. This is beyond bizarre. Even after the September 11 attacks, we overhauled whole swaths of our immigration system, including creating the Department of Homeland Security, but we did not amend the INA to bar the people involved in the planning and commission of those attacks from entering into the United States. We used visa sanctions. During markup, I asked the majority to work with us to improve the legislation and ensure there were no unintended consequences. Unfortunately, they ignored our request. By not working with us, I worry that the majority signals an unseriousness about this issue that ensures that this bill will not become law. Despite these concerns, I will vote ``yes'' on the legislation, and I urge everyone else to do so. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, as I said, no member of Hamas or anyone associated with the horrific attacks of October 7 should be allowed to enter this country. Although that is already the law, I support the goal of making sure this is crystal clear. Though I have concerns about how this legislation was drafted and whether it would achieve its stated goal, I will support this bill with the hope that we can further improve it as it moves through the legislative process. I plan to vote ``yes,'' and I urge everyone else to vote ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support the gentleman's amendment, and I think it helps improve the underlying bill. I wish the majority had worked with us on this legislation to make it a visa sanctions bill. If they had, this amendment would not be needed because we would already have the data this amendment requires to be reported. However, given our concerns related to the drafting of this legislation and the potential for unintended consequences, I welcome this amendment so that Congress can unequivocally confirm that the number of people impacted by this bill is minimum. The Congressional Budget Office has already said this bill has no budgetary impact because it essentially restates current law. This amendment will help confirm the accuracy of that analysis. Mr. Speaker, I therefore support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5585, the Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act, would establish harsh criminal and immigration penalties for flight, while operating a motor vehicle, from a pursuing U.S. Border Patrol agent or other law enforcement officer assisting in the pursuit. Let me make clear: The death of Agent Gonzalez in the performance of his duties is a tragedy, and our hearts go out to his family and friends. However, H.R. 5585 is not the best or even a viable answer to the perceived problem this bill claims to solve. High-speed vehicle pursuits can be incredibly dangerous, often ending in horrific accidents with serious injuries or even the deaths of individuals being chased by law enforcement, as well as innocent bystanders and law enforcement personnel. According to a report by the ACLU of Texas, Border Patrol-involved vehicle pursuits resulted in 107 deaths, not including law enforcement officers, between January of 2010 and November of 2023. Following public outcry as the number of deaths continued to rise, CBP conducted a review of its vehicle pursuit policy. The review resulted in a newly revised directive published in January of last year, just 1 month after Agent Gonzalez was killed. The net effect of the new policy is to discourage the number of high-speed pursuits. When weighing the potential risk to the safety of the public and law enforcement officers, many jurisdictions have determined that the risks are far too great to justify a vehicle pursuit. I hope CBP agents will be encouraged to adhere to the agency's updated policy. I have many concerns with the criminal aspects of this legislation, but most troubling is its inclusion of mandatory minimum sentences. For more than a decade, mandatory minimums have been widely condemned for many reasons, including their disproportionate application of cases involving people of color and the resulting mass incarceration and overpolicing of marginalized communities. We must continue to resist every urge to add to the list of Federal criminal offenses subject to mandatory minimum penalties, because they have served to perpetuate injustice and inequity within our criminal justice system. Turning to the immigration provisions of this bill, the justification for such harsh penalties is similarly lacking. People who are convicted of fleeing law enforcement are already deportable and inadmissible. One of the many ways someone can become inadmissible and deportable is if they are convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, commonly called a CIMT. Courts have previously determined that knowingly fleeing or eluding law enforcement is a CIMT. However, this bill makes a significant change by not requiring that an individual actually be convicted of the crime to render them deportable. Under current law, to be deportable for a CIMT, there must be a conviction, but this bill would erase that conviction requirement, allowing someone to be rendered deportable even if they have never been convicted of a crime. Deportability is not about undocumented immigrants, who are already removable. This is about people who are here legally, who in many cases have put down roots, have American citizen spouses and family and children. By and large, we are talking about lawful permanent residents, people who have put down roots in our communities, as I said, many of whom have U.S. citizen spouses and children who have truly established themselves here in the United States. If they are convicted of evading or fleeing law enforcement, they are generally already removable. Rendering such a person deportable without requiring a conviction raises serious due process concerns. While the inclusion of mandatory minimum sentences is enough reason to vote no on H.R. 5585, the unjustifiably harsh immigration provisions render the bill a complete nonstarter. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I would remind the gentlewoman and others that people who engage in high-speed chases with the Border Patrol are already deportable. The question on this bill is not whether they should be deported. The question is whether they should be convicted of the crime of engaging in a high-speed chase before being deported or whether we throw due process out the window. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, the gentlewoman from, I think, Texas a moment ago said that this bill was necessary for the safety of our people. The truth is the safety of our people is already provided for by the current law, which makes engaging in a high-speed chase with Border Patrol agents a deportable offense already. What this bill does is to remove due process protections; due process protections that we recognize as very important throughout our law. The truth of the matter is this is a diversion. Everybody on that side of the aisle knows this bill is going nowhere in the Senate. This bill is not intended to go anywhere in the Senate. Everyone knows that a serious and very harsh overall immigration bill is being negotiated in the Senate, by Democratic Senators and by very conservative Republican Senators; a bill that is much more conservative than I would like to see, which I may not vote for, but which will probably get 75 or 80 votes in the Senate and could be signed by the President, establishing a very harsh regime that the other side of the aisle would probably like, that Senator Lankford likes, that Senator Tillis likes, not notable liberal Members. We have a former President who has said--and I appreciate his honesty--he doesn't want a solution to the problem. He doesn't want our border problem fixed until he is the President again because he wants the issue. What we are really dealing with is should we enact legislation that may solve the border problem, or should we keep it as an issue so that Donald Trump can campaign on it, and we can all debate that issue during the campaign but take no action? That is what we are really debating. This bill and the three bills that will come this week are diversions. They are minor bills. They don't really do anything to keep our safety. As I said, for instance, on this one, engaging in a high-speed chase with the CBP is already a deportable offense. All they want to do in this bill is remove some due process provisions for our longtime residents. However, this is pitiful, and it is minor-league stuff compared to major legislation that will actually solve our border problem, and that legislation is pending in the Senate. The Senate will probably pass it next week. Moreover, we are told that it won't even be allowed to come to a vote in the House. Why? Because Marjorie Taylor Greene has said that if the Speaker brings any immigration bill that the Senate passes to the floor, she will move to vacate the chair. Why? Because our former President wants a campaign issue. Senator Tillis has said this is shameful. Senator Romney has said this is more than shameful. Yet, that is what we are hearing. That is what we are seeing from our friends on the Republican side of the aisle--a total disinterest in the public interest, a total disinterest in the public safety, a total interest only in rhetoric and campaign material. They have said it by their own admission. So let's not waste our time with this bill, which is irrelevant. It is not a good bill either because it dispenses with due process, but it is irrelevant because it is not going anywhere in the Senate; neither are the other three bills that were reported out of the Judiciary Committee that are also going nowhere in the Senate that we will waste our time on in the next few days. Why waste our time? Why not deal with something real? Why not deal, if not with immigration, at least on something else real? This Congress, with the exception of continuing resolutions and the debt ceiling crisis, has passed not one single bill into law--not one. And even the continuing resolution to prevent the government from shutting down, half on March 1 and half on March 8, passed with 107 Republicans voting yes, 106 Republicans voting no, and the Democrats all voting yes. We pulled the fat out of the fire. So let's not waste our time with this. Let's not waste our time with this unnecessary legislation. Let's do something serious about immigration. Let's do something serious about anything. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I won't oppose the amendment, but I do want to make two points. First, the data collected under this amendment is unlikely to be of much value without any understanding of the circumstances surrounding the charging decisions. Although I will not oppose it, I am concerned that without additional information, such a report could draw misleading or false conclusions. Second, and more important, this amendment does absolutely nothing to improve the underlying bill. Therefore, whether or not this amendment passes, I still urge strong opposition to the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Amy Rutkin for nearly twenty-five years of outstanding service to the constituents of New York's 12th Congressional District and the House Judiciary Committee. The decision to hire Amy as my Chief of Staff in 1999 was--as all my best decisions are--at the suggestion of my wife, Joyce, who had met her while working on the same New York City Comptroller race. While Amy hadn't previously worked on the Hill, upon meeting her, I knew she possessed the intellect, tenacity, and problem-solving skills necessary to step directly into the Chief of Staff role. Previously, Amy had served as Director of Government Relations and Public Policy at Hadassah; as a Policy Analyst for New York Governor Mario Cuomo; and as Associate Director of Public Affairs at Planned Parenthood. This experience demonstrated our shared passion for advocacy and fighting for the principles we both believe in: women's and LGBTQ+ equality, civil rights, progressive Zionism, and much more. While Amy grew up in Arizona and earned her undergraduate degree at Brandeis University in Boston, Massachusetts, she became steeped in the world of New York City politics when she studied at my alma mater, Columbia University, going on to graduate with a master's in public administration. Despite a promise not to stay in the position ``a day over four years,'' Amy was quickly thrown into the center of some of our nation's most significant challenges, and her commitment to seeing those challenges through kept her fighting alongside me for nearly twenty- five years. Barely two years into her taking the Chief of Staff role, the 9/11 terrorist attacks devastated my district, which then stretched from the Upper West Side of Manhattan through the heart of the World Trade Center and to parts of Brooklyn. We knew immediately that the air in Lower Manhattan wasn't safe to breathe--despite assurances from the Bush Administration--and in the years following, Amy dedicated herself to leading efforts in Congress to care for the victims, work that culminated in the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. This landmark legislation upheld our promise to our nation's heroes who responded to the attacks as well as to all those who had been impacted by the toxic dust in the disaster area--a monumental feat that affected thousands of lives. Thanks to her persistence and dedication, Amy's impact on our 9/11 families can be felt far and wide. Years later, in 2017, our work together would face its biggest test as I entered the race to become Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee. Thanks in great part to the strong record I had built over the years with Amy's advice, I earned the trust of my colleagues to become the Ranking Member, a goal we had discussed for many years finally coming to fruition. I was proud to appoint Amy as Chief of Staff to the Committee, a role she seamlessly assumed following our victory. Becoming Ranking Member--and later, Chairman--of the Judiciary Committee brought with it great opportunities for legislative action that Amy and I had talked about for years. It came with a caveat, however; Donald Trump was the President, and there was mounting pressure to launch an impeachment inquiry as he was fundamentally threatening and degrading our democracy. Amy navigated the complexities of leading an impeachment with a steady hand, facing a demanding schedule and non-stop media attention, managing a staff of some of our nation's finest minds, and working closely with the House Leadership team. This experience earned her the acclaim of former Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who praised her ``wise counsel'' and ``razor-sharp instincts,'' an assessment I couldn't agree with more. After the Impeachment concluded in early 2020, unbeknownst to anyone at the time, we would be back again the following year for yet another impeachment after President Trump led the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol. While under vastly different circumstances--this time, the Members were the direct victims of the President's crimes--Amy built on past experience to give President Trump the dishonor of being the only President to be impeached twice. Impeachments aside, Amy's tenure leading the staff of the Judiciary Committee allowed us to realize several legislative goals we had worked on together for two decades. For example, back in 2009, when same-sex marriages were under attack, Amy was critical in helping author the Respect for Marriage Act to protect marriage equality, a bill that was seen as fanciful at the time. Although the Supreme Court later recognized marriage equality in the Obergefell decision, this right came under renewed threat when Justice Thomas urged revisiting that precedent in the Dobbs case, which overturned decades of precedent protecting the right to reproductive freedom. Amy seized the moment and jumped into action to revive efforts to pass the Respect for Marriage Act. Within months, we were on the White House Lawn together with President Biden as he signed the bill into law. A dream that seemed impossible just a decade earlier had become a reality largely due to Amy's relentless tenacity for LGBTQ+ equality. Fighting for civil rights has always been at the core of my political philosophy, but it was never more urgent than in the wake of George Floyd's murder in 2020, when our country was clamoring for change to our nation's approach to policing. Amy worked in tandem with then- Representative and now-Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to advance the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act through the House, not once but twice. On their work together, former Congresswoman Bass said, ``Let me say in no uncertain terms that the United States House of Representatives would not have been able to pass the most comprehensive police reform package in United States history--the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act--two different times, without Amy's steady guidance and leadership.'' Simply put, under Amy's leadership, the House Judiciary Committee was as productive and consequential as it has ever been in the years I served as Chairman. These accomplishments allowed me to run in a difficult primary last cycle on a record that was unmatched, and I am thankful to Amy not only for helping to develop this record, but also for amplifying to constituents the impact of my work in Washington. Even now in the minority, Amy continues to influence the issues she is most passionate about. In the wake of the October 7th attack on Israel, she has doubled down on her work supporting my role as the most senior Jewish Member of Congress and she is a visible demonstration that you can be both progressive and Zionist. She is relentless in her work supporting our informal group of Jewish Members of Congress--and her success in bringing together voices from across the political spectrum speaks volumes to her understanding of the complexities of the Jewish community and her deep connection to the values that bind us together. I would be remiss if I did not mention Amy's children, Phoebe and Zoey. Both of her children were born during her tenure in the office, and for me and the rest of our team, it has been a pleasure watching them grow up and hearing their stories and jokes about their dog, Rufus. As Amy moves on to the next chapter in her life, I am forever grateful to have had her by my side for nearly twenty-five years as my most trusted advisor. With her brilliant political instincts, keen understanding of policy, and strong moral compass, she has been essential in bringing about so many of my accomplishments throughout my tenure in Congress. I want to thank her for her many years of service and her friendship over the years. My district, the Judiciary Committee, and the lives of millions of people are better off for having had Amy fighting on their behalf.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6918, the so called Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act. This bill would achieve the exact opposite of its purported goal of supporting parenting women and families--instead, it would divers funding away from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, or TANF. TANF provides cash assistance directly to struggling families with children to pay for essential needs. Hypocritically, this extreme GOP bill would siphon off funding intended for our neediest families to prop up a network of unlicensed, unregulated Crisis Pregnancy Centers run by anti-choice activists. If the GOP was truly the ``pro-life'' party, they would know that TANF is the only federal assistance program that struggling families can use to buy diapers for their babies. Families who receive direct cash assistance through TANF can purchase diapers for their children at their nearest store. Some of my Republican colleagues have argued that many Crisis Pregnancy Centers provide diapers for families. However, if parents had to instead rely on Crisis Pregnancy Centers for essential childcare needs, they could be forced to travel long distances to centers that might not be accessible through public transportation. Additionally, an investigation by this very body found that 87% of anti-abortion counseling centers provide false or misleading information about reproductive care. If the GOP was in touch with the needs of their constituents, they would know that diaper need is a crisis in America that can overwhelm families who are already financially struggling. An average monthly supply of diapers for a single child costs $80 to $100. As of 2023, half of U.S. families report not being able to afford enough diapers to keep their child clean, dry, and healthy, and 3 in 5 parents report missing work or school because they can't afford the diapers required to leave their baby in childcare. Tell me, how is taking away the only federal funding for diapers pro-life? I strongly oppose this farce of a bill that would only harm struggling families. Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak in strong opposition to the proposed legislation, H.R. 6918--Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act. This legislation, in my view, represents a concerning step in the wrong direction. It has been characterized by critics as part of a broader effort by conservative Republicans to limit women's reproductive freedom. With nearly 18 months having passed since the pivotal Roe v. Wade decision was overturned, the introduction of this bill signals a continued push towards what some view as a national ban on abortion. I believe that reproductive rights are a fundamental aspect of individual autonomy, and any legislative measures that may restrict or impede these rights warrant scrutiny. Furthermore, the potential allocation of federal funds to support such measures raises serious concerns about the appropriate use of taxpayer dollars and the role of government in personal healthcare decisions. I am committed to advocating for policies that uphold and protect the reproductive rights of individuals, recognizing the importance of a balanced and inclusive approach that respects diverse perspectives. This legislation seeks to undermine a woman's right to access abortion services by employing tactics that involve misleading information, deceptive practices, and attempts at shaming individuals seeking reproductive care. We as Democrats, in response, remain steadfast in our commitment to enshrine reproductive freedom as a legal right through the Women's Health Protection Act (H.R. 12). This comprehensive legislation aims to safeguard individuals' access to essential reproductive healthcare services and protect them from deceptive practices that may obstruct their right to make informed choices about their reproductive health. We must advocate for a legislative approach that prioritizes the autonomy and well-being of individuals seeking reproductive care while countering efforts to curtail their rights through disinformation and coercion. In addition, H.R. 6918 raises significant concerns as it proposes funding for what are commonly referred to as ``crisis pregnancy centers'' or anti-abortion centers (AACs). These entities have been criticized for engaging in deceptive practices that aim to manipulate women during their pregnancies, potentially hindering their ability to access comprehensive reproductive care. In light of these considerations, I firmly oppose H.R. 6918 and will work to ensure that the legislative process reflects a careful examination of its potential impact on the rights and choices of individuals. In my home state of Texas where abortion have been completely banned, our state has continued to struggle with maternal mortality and morbidity, and the rates are only expected to increase as the years go by. In 2013, when Texas first started tracking deaths and severe illness or injury from pregnancy and childbirth, Black women were twice as likely as white women and four times as likely as Hispanic women to die from pregnancy-related causes. This number has only increased as more women are being denied lifesaving abortion measures and face inadequate care after birth. Another undermining aspect of this bill is in its use of TANF, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. TANF plays a crucial role as it is a vital resource for families across the country. This bill, however, introduces a concerning element by potentially creating a loophole that could divert essential funding away from its intended purpose, channeling it toward anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers. These centers have faced scrutiny for their practices, with critics arguing that they may engage in deceptive tactics, potentially impacting the comprehensive support available to families. By allowing TANF funding to be redirected to such centers, there is a risk that the intended assistance for struggling families may be compromised. TANF's importance cannot be underestimated as it provides financial support, job preparation, and other essential services to low-income families. The proposed diversion of funds to anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers raises questions about the broader impact on the social safety net and the potential limitations it might place on the availability of diverse and comprehensive resources for those in need. As discussions on this bill unfold, it is crucial to assess how any changes may affect the original objectives of TANF and the families it is designed to support.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this country is facing real problems. The right to bodily autonomy is under attack across the Nation. There was a school shooting just 4 days into the new year, leading to the tragic death of an 11-year-old and the injury of 7 others. Our immigration system cannot function because Congress has failed to reform it for over 30 years, and Republican hard-liners are threatening to shut down the government if we don't ``shut down the border.'' House Republicans are not working to respond to any of these problems as they are too busy fighting among themselves. Their historic dysfunction has even prompted multiple Members of their Conference to complain that they have nothing to campaign on. Today's resolution is not going to help. This resolution will do nothing to solve the situation at the border. It proposes no solutions of any kind. In fact, this resolution is nothing more than a highlight reel of the Republican talking points on immigration that we have heard over and over from Republicans since President Biden was sworn into office. Let me say once again: The border is not open. The Biden administration has been removing people at a record clip over the last few months, restricting asylum with a new regulation, and placing thousands of families in expedited removal. Since the end of title 42 last May, the Biden administration has removed or returned nearly a half million individuals. That is more than the number of people removed in all of fiscal year 2019 under the Trump administration. However, because President Biden isn't saying that he wants to shoot migrants trying to cross the border, like Governors Abbott and DeSantis have, Republicans don't think he is doing enough. Further, despite my colleagues' claims, fentanyl is largely not coming into this country between ports of entry. More than 90 percent of fentanyl interdicted is stopped at ports of entry where cartels attempted to smuggle it in through primarily vehicles driven by American citizens. I am not sure how anyone can say the border is open. On top of this, at every turn, Republicans have voted against giving the administration the resources it needs to do its job. Nearly every current House Republican voted against the bipartisan infrastructure deal in the fiscal year 2023 omnibus. Both of these bills provided significant additional funding to increase staffing and modernize ports of entry to combat the smuggling of people and drugs. We need to work together to address our broken immigration system. Right now we have a system where many, many people come into this country, present themselves to Border Patrol or not. They are apprehended. They claim asylum under our law. They are entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge, but because we don't have enough asylum officers and immigration judges, their case isn't heard for years, so they are told to come back in 4 years or whatever for their hearing, and the Republicans call this catch and release. If the Biden administration's proposals for funding for more border guards, more CBP people, more asylum and immigration judges would be approved, then these claims could be adjudicated in a matter of weeks, not years. Those entitled to asylum would be granted it in weeks and would be permitted to work, and those not entitled to it would be swiftly deported. However, due to the lack of resources caused by Republican insistence on voting against those resources, this doesn't happen, and we have the catch and release system and millions of people staying in this country when they shouldn't entirely because of the Republicans, and then they say it is President Biden's open border policy. We need to work together to address our broken immigration system. Unfortunately, House Republicans insist they will only consider H.R. 2, their fantasy, draconian, enforcement-only bill which stands no chance of passage in the Senate. Real solutions require compromise, but MAGA Republicans aren't interested in compromise. What they are interested in is passing bills like the one before us today. I should say resolutions. This is not a bill. This resolution is nothing but empty rhetoric designed to score cheap political points that bring us no closer to meaningful reform. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I hope we can get to serious work, but meanwhile, we should oppose this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the reason the gentleman from Arizona couldn't find any Border Patrol agents is because Republicans have refused to vote the appropriations to greatly increase the number of Border Patrol agents that the Biden administration has proposed. We know there aren't enough Border Patrol agents. The administration knows this. The administration has proposed funding for many more Border Patrol agents, but the Republicans have refused to vote for it. Then they complain that they can't find Border Patrol agents along the border. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), the ranking Democrat on the Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement Subcommittee.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute 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 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar).

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