Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, let me say that I agree with some of what I heard from the Republicans. They said there is a lot of nonsense spoken on the floor today. Indeed, there was. Everything they have said about this bill is nonsense. They have said there is no Muslim ban. Everybody knows there was a Muslim ban. The President said he was going to impose a Muslim ban, and then he did. When Nydia Velazquez and I went to Kennedy airport, when Jan Schakowsky went to the airport in Chicago, when other people went to the airport, what did we find? We found Muslims being kept out of the country. People with perfectly valid visas, perfectly valid green cards, people whose relatives were waiting for them here because they had perfectly valid entry certificates, were being kept out of the country, and they couldn't even speak to their lawyers. That is the next bill we will be considering on the floor in a few minutes. That is what we found. And that has been in effect for a long time. It is un-American. It is unconstitutional. It is against the ethics of this country. As the Speaker said--I think it was the Speaker who said it--the motto of the country is E Pluribus Unum; from many, one. This situation, this Muslim ban, denies that. This says E Pluribus--I don't know the Latin from a few, not from all. Madam Speaker, we must pass this bill. More than 400 organizations and industry leaders support this bill. They include Muslim Advocates, the ACLU, Airbnb, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. Yes, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. Why? Because the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society remembers its futile efforts when Jews were turned away from this country to go back to the Holocaust; when the St. Louis was turned back to go back to the Holocaust; when the State Department deliberately wouldn't even use the quota. The quota was 150,000, and they kept it down to 6,000 because of the anti-Semitism of some officials in the State Department. And the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society--which was formed to aid Jewish immigrants, but has long since broadened its mission to aid immigrants from any country--knows what happens and doesn't want to see it happen again. That is why they are supporting this bill. Other organizations and industry leaders that support this bill include the Service Employees International Union, because so many of their members were born abroad; the National Immigration Law Center, MoveOn, and United We Dream. Members on both sides of the aisle should agree that no President, Republican or Democrat, should be permitted to usurp the powers of the legislative branch enshrined in the Constitution. The separation of power is fundamental to our democratic Republic and must be protected. For all these reasons, that is why passage of H.R. 1333 is so vital. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from California such time as she may consume.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I am going to have a lot more to say about this bill a little later, but I have to respond to one point that the gentleman just made. He said he was considering whether the agreement to enter the Union was valid or was worth it. He is not the first to consider that. John Calhoun considered that. Others considered it, and they tried it. The result was a civil war. So I certainly hope that no one is thinking of that again. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot of nonsense on this floor. I have heard a lot of fiction on this floor today, but not everything the Republicans have said is fiction. They said, for instance, there is a crisis at the border. Indeed, there is a crisis at the border. The crisis at the border started under President Trump and has continued under President Biden; the same crisis. The difference is that President Trump tried to deal with the crisis in the cruelest way possible, by tearing babies away from their parents, by tearing families apart, and by doing so, so incompetently--I assume it was incompetence; maybe it was malevolence, I don't know--that they didn't even get the records so that people today can figure out how to reunite these families. The crisis continues, but at least we are dealing with it. We are trying to deal with it in a humane way. It is also interesting the fictions we have heard about this bill: This bill will cost money, this bill gives people the right to an attorney, and the Federal Government will have to pay for that attorney. Not true. Not true. I suspect my Republican colleagues have lost the ability to read a bill somehow. The bill is very clear. The bill simply says that if someone with valid documents--valid documents--no litigation as to whether they are valid or not, they have got to be valid in the first place, a U.S. citizen, a green card holder, someone with a valid visa, that is all we are talking about. The bill simply says that those people, if detained at a border entry point for a period of time for longer than an hour have the right to make a phone call. A phone call doesn't cost the government anything. They have the right to make a phone call. To whom? To whoever they want. A family member, perhaps an attorney, a friend, whoever they want. Experience tells us that when people can make a phone call to an attorney in such a situation because the INA, the Immigration and Naturalization Act, is so complicated, it can often straighten things out, and that saves the government money. Because they don't have to litigate, it saves the government money. So this bill will not cost the government any money. It will save it money. It will also help people who must be helped--again, I stress, only those people who have a valid document to enter the United States and for some reason are detained at the border. How long does this last? Eight hours, at most. That is what the bill says, 8 hours. This bill is limited to a measure that Members on both sides of the aisle, everybody, should embrace. As I said before, this is not a bill about a right to counsel. It is simply a bill about fair process. It ensures that individuals seeking to enter the United States with facially valid documents--a visa, a green card, including U.S. citizens who may have a passport--are given an opportunity to call somebody, a family member, counsel, another interested party, whoever they want, if they are subject to prolonged inspection. Admissibility decisions by Customs and Border Protection can have life-altering consequences. This bill will ensure that CBP has the relevant facts prior to making decisions, the relevant facts, and facts that don't cost the CBP anything to get. Well, they do, actually: the cost of a phone call. I take that back. It would cost the CBP the cost of a phone call, although not necessarily, because the person may have their cell phone on him. So, it won't even cost the cost of a telephone. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the Access to Counsel Act. It makes sense. It hurts nobody. It imposes no duty on the government. It imposes no cost on the government. But it does mean that people will not unnecessarily get caught up in bureaucracy. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the Access to Counsel Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today, along with Representative Hank Johnson, chair of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet to honor and congratulate James Duff, who recently retired from his position as Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. In his role as Director, he also served as Secretary of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the principal policy-making body of the federal Judiciary. The Supreme Court and our federal court system are a cornerstone of our democracy; the third branch of our government is tasked with rendering impartial justice through interpreting and applying the laws that we in Congress pass, and of course, the Constitution. The judges and Justices who have this enormous responsibility rely on the Administrative Office to set them up for success, and this is no small undertaking. During his more than eleven years of service, Director Duff guided the courts through government shutdowns and the COVID-19 pandemic among other challenges, dedicating his efforts to ensuring that our federal courts have the resources and support they need to faithfully fulfill their constitutional role as the third branch of government. Even prior to his role as Director, Mr. Duff had a long history of public service with the courts, particularly the Supreme Court. He was an assistant to Chief Justice Warren E. Burger while studying at Georgetown Law. From 1996-2000, he was a counselor/administrative assistant to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. In that role, he was the Court's liaison to Congress, the executive branch, and various state and federal organizations involved with the administration of justice and assisted the Chief Justice in his duties as Chancellor of the Smithsonian Institution. Besides his work for the courts, Director Duff has been active in the community and educating the next generation of lawyers. He has served as the chairman of the Supreme Court Fellows Commission, a board member of the Supreme Court Historical Society, and an adjunct faculty member at Georgetown University, teaching constitutional law and civil liberties. In 2012, he was named to the University of Kentucky Arts & Sciences Hall of Fame and was the recipient of the Georgetown Entertainment and Media Law Achievement Award. In 2014, Director Duff was appointed to Georgetown Law's Board of Visitors and was named the Peter Mullen Professor of Law. Upon appointment from Chief Justice Roberts, Director Duff twice served as the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, from 2006 to 2011, and from 2015 to 2021. About his tenure, the Chief Justice shared the following congratulatory words which are worth reiterating here: Jim Duff has provided invaluable service to the Judiciary during his first term as Director from 2006 to 2011 and his second term from 2015 to the present. During these periods, he has provided superb judgment in addressing a broad range of issues. Among his many accomplishments, he has resolved budgetary challenges, implemented workplace conduct reforms, introduced new technology, strengthened and improved the auditing and oversight of the Judicial Branch's financial management, and--most recently--ensured that the courts continue to operate effectively in the face of the nationwide pandemic. As much as I appreciate his many contributions, I understand his desire to begin a new phase of his life. On behalf of the Judiciary, I thank Jim for his leadership. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts does critical work to help ensure the nation's federal courts remain fair, efficient, independent, and impartial. We thank and congratulate Director Duff for his over eleven-year tenure as the head of that office and for his work with Congress during that time. This work has included securing critical appropriations for the judiciary, such as emergency funding during the recent coronavirus pandemic, ensuring that the law establishes courthouse locations and district divisions that reflect the needs of the community and judiciary, helping to ensure the safety of judges by securing legislation, the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007, which was directed at coordinating the work of the U.S. Marshals with the Judicial Conference and imposing criminal penalties designed to protect judges, witnesses, and others involved in court proceedings, and, in separate legislation, providing that sensitive information in financial disclosures can be redacted. We also commend Director Duff's commitment to public service and teaching throughout his career. After all of these accomplishments, we wish Director Duff the best in the next chapter in his life along with a fulfilling and rewarding retirement.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Suozzi).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 233, I call up the bill (H.R. 1603) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for terms and conditions for nonimmigrant workers performing agricultural labor or services, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1603, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act of 2021 addresses an issue of critical national importance: the growing labor challenges that are damaging the American agriculture sector. Solving this issue is paramount to the sustainability of American farming. It is also a matter of food security, and thus, national security. As domestic food outputs decline, we have become more dependent on food imports and more vulnerable to food contamination. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed these vulnerabilities as travel restrictions impacted our food supply chain, and over 500,000 farmworkers tested positive for the virus. With fewer U.S. workers turning to agricultural work as their chosen pursuit, most of today's hired farm laborers are foreign-born. Unfortunately, our immigration laws have not been updated to reflect the needs of our 21st century economy. As a result of these outdated laws, undocumented workers now comprise about half of the U.S. workforce. But they are living and working in a state of uncertainty and fear, which contributes to the destabilization of farms across the Nation. H.R. 1603, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, addresses these challenges head on. The bill provides temporary status to current farmworkers with an optional path to a green card for those who continue to work in agriculture. The bill also addresses the Nation's future labor needs by modernizing the H-2A temporary visa program, while ensuring fair wages and workplace conditions for all farmworkers. This is a bipartisan, balanced solution, one that we should all be able to get behind. It is a victory for farmers who have struggled with persistent labor shortages for decades. It is also a victory for farmworkers who have worked tirelessly in the field growing and harvesting food without proper labor protections or any guarantee that they can remain in this country. No acceptable solution can fail to deal with this reality. That is why H.R. 1603 is the right solution. Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues will vote today in favor of providing a seat at America's table for those who have long grown the food we serve on it. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, Ms. Lofgren of California, the chair of the Immigration Subcommittee, for her leadership and steadfast commitment to the bipartisan process that led to today's vote on the Farm Workforce Modernization Act. Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support our farmers and our farmworkers by supporting this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.