Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5581, the Access to Counsel Act of 2020. Last September, the Judiciary Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing to explore the Muslim ban, including the chaos that unfolded at airports across the country when it was first announced. I can personally attest to that chaos, based on my experience at JFK Airport immediately after the ban was implemented. Refugees, individuals with valid visas, and even lawful permanent residents of the United States were detained for hours and prevented from speaking with attorneys. Some even had their phones taken away and were unable to call their family members. Although the issue grabbed the headlines then, it is unfortunately a problem that occurs daily. Due to the complexity of the U.S. immigration law and the fact-intensive nature of questions regarding admissibility, it is not uncommon for some people to spend hours undergoing inspection by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol. During this time, individuals are often prevented from communicating with those on the outside. And if the individual is lucky enough to have a lawyer, CBP will often refuse to speak with them, even if they can provide critical information or correct a legal error. Moreover, serious consequences can result from being refused admission. For example, an individual who is given an expedited removal order is barred from returning to the United States for 5 years. H.R. 5581 will ensure that no one who presents themselves at a port of entry with valid travel documents is completely cut off from the world during inspection. H.R. 5581 allows such individuals, including U.S. citizens, to communicate with counsel and other parties if they are subjected to secondary inspection that lasts longer than one hour. To be clear, this bill does not provide a right to counsel, nor does it impose any obligation on the Federal Government to pay for or otherwise provide counsel to individuals during CBP inspection proceedings. I wish it did, but it doesn't. This is confirmed by the fact that the Congressional Budget Office found that H.R. 5581 would have no effect on direct spending or revenues. I would like to extend a special thanks to my colleague, Representative Jayapal, for her leadership on this issue and for championing this bill. I encourage my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume again to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 2214, the National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act, or the No BAN Act, is critical legislation that will stop executive overreach, defend Congress' role in establishing our Nation's immigration laws, and right one of the original sins of the Trump administration: the Muslim ban. When the Trump administration issued its first version of the ban in January 2017, it was immediately apparent that it was unconstitutional, discriminatory, and morally reprehensible. Its chaotic rollout only magnified the cruelty underlying this policy. When news first broke that people were being detained at the airports, I immediately rushed to JFK Airport that morning along with Congresswoman Velazquez. Within hours, we were joined by hundreds of demonstrators demanding justice. What we found was chaos and heartbreak. Refugees, people with valid visas, and even legal permanent residents, people who had assisted American troops and saved their lives in Iraq were prevented from entering the country or even speaking with their attorneys. We met people like Hameed Khalid Darweesh, an Iraqi who put his life on the line for 10 years to work with American and coalition forces as a translator. He underwent a years-long extensive vetting process to secure a Special Immigrant Visa granted to people who assist our military in Iraq and Afghanistan. In return for his efforts, this hero was welcomed to the United States with a door slammed in his face and a grueling ordeal at the airport as he pleaded for his freedom. I am pleased that Congresswoman Velazquez and I were able to work with officials in New York and Washington to secure his release eventually, but we should never have had to do that. That is not the country we are proud to represent in Congress. We do not betray those who save American troops. Although the President's initial Muslim ban was ultimately blocked by numerous courts, in 2018, after protracted litigation and several court injunctions, the Supreme Court unfortunately upheld the third version of the ban, Presidential Proclamation 9645. The Court reached this decision based on its broad reading of section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes the President to ``suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens'' when the President finds that such entry ``would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.'' I strongly disagree with the Court's broad interpretation of that provision. Section 212(f) was intended to give the President discretion to quickly address emergent issues involving public health, national security, public safety, or international stability. It was not intended to provide carte blanche authority to the President to ban large categories of individuals without justification or to rewrite immigration laws with which he disagrees. That is why this legislation is so important. H.R. 2214 will repeal these shameful bans and stop executive overreach by amending 212(f) to prevent any President from using it in a manner that is unlawful or unconscionable. The United States has always been and must continue to be a place that welcomes and embraces people of all religions and all nationalities. But as a result of the Muslim ban, our country's reputation as a beacon of hope, tolerance, and inclusion for those fleeing persecution, reuniting with their families, or simply seeking a better life has been forever tarnished. I would like to thank my friend and colleague Representative Chu for introducing this legislation and for her leadership and commitment to this issue. I also want to thank the NO BAN coalition, led by Muslim Advocates, and all of the many organizations whose support was vital to bringing this bill to the floor today. It is long overdue. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the NO BAN Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I find it bizarre to suggest that you shouldn't vote for a bill because some other bill may do something that you don't like. This bill does not provide--I personally think maybe it would be a good idea, but that is not this bill. This bill does not provide for funded counsel in any way. It doesn't do that. Maybe I should introduce a bill to do that. That is not this bill, so let's forget about that. This bill simply says that if an individual is held--an individual who may be an America citizen, who may be a green card holder, who if improperly, by mistake, is sent out of the country and may be forbidden from applying to come back in for 5 years, with all kinds of problems, who may be a cancer researcher who is supposed to work at Rockefeller Institute or Johns Hopkins or wherever and would be denied his or her talents because of a mistake. All this bill says is that if someone is held in secondary inspection for at least an hour, they must be given an opportunity to call counsel, to call other people, to call their brother-in-law, to call whoever, and to communicate. That is all the bill says. I fail to understand why it is at all controversial. It will prevent the kind of tragic mistakes that have been made in the past. It will prevent the kind of confusion that we saw, that I personally saw at the airport when people were held for hours and hours and weren't permitted to talk to counsel standing outside the door, when I physically had to prevent the door from closing and dared them to arrest a Member of Congress in order to allow an immigrant with valid papers to speak to an attorney who was standing on the other side of the door. That is what this bill is. It is simple. It is humane. It is commonsensical and ought to be adopted. I urge everyone to vote for this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today, I voted against the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. While this legislation includes several provisions that I strongly support--including prohibiting the use of funds to support the Saudi-led coalition for strikes in Yemen and limiting the President's ability to divert funds to build his wasteful border wall--it ultimately fails to rein in our nation's out of control defense spending. Amid a global pandemic, and at a time when our nation's poverty rate is at least 25 percent, it is unconscionable that Congress is authorizing a record-breaking Pentagon budget of $740.5 billion--over half of our discretionary budget. Multiple independent analyses have concluded that our nation's collective security would not suffer by cutting obsolete cold war weapon systems, rejecting new nuclear weapons, and ending our military's reliance on expensive private contractors. Congress must confront this reality and take meaningful action to ensure that the basic needs of American families are prioritized over wasteful military spending. That's why I'm deeply disappointed that an amendment I supported to reduce the Pentagon's budget by ten percent--while exempting military personnel and the Defense Health Program from any reduction--was defeated on the House floor. While I oppose the wasteful spending included in this legislation, I am pleased that it authorizes a three percent military pay raise and contains provisions to protect the health of military families by cleaning so-called PFAS forever chemicals and investing in military housing infrastructure improvements. The bill also takes important steps to improve the tracking of military child abuse cases, improve sexual assault prevention and response, and require that the DoD procure body armor that properly fits female service members. I am also pleased that the bill takes meaningful action to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay--an issue I have long championed--by eliminating arbitrary restrictions on the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay that hindered the Obama Administration's ability to close the facility. Although I am glad these important provisions were included, I could not and cannot support a bill that ensures our nation will provide $550 billion more in discretionary funding for military spending than for healthcare, education, workforce development, and anti-poverty programs combined.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, Mr. Jordan is correct. The Democrats in the Senate did indeed oppose the Republican bill because that bill is a sham designed to look as if it is doing something, designed to look as if it is having some reform while, in fact, doing nothing, just more sham and just more sham histrionics designed to make sure that nothing real passes and that nothing changes. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we agree on some things; nothing meaningful. The Republicans agree on studies, not on action. They agree on nothing that will add accountability to the police, nothing that will prevent police brutality, nothing that contributes in any way to Black Lives Matter. They will not agree to banning chokeholds. They will not agree to changing the mens rea statutes so we can hold brutal officers accountable. They will not agree to banning no-knock warrants in drug cases. They will not agree to ending qualified immunity. They will agree to studies. They will agree to gestures. They will agree to shams. Their whole approach is a sham, because they agree to nothing meaningful, and they claim to be meaningful. Their claim is a sham. They will do nothing that will add accountability, nothing that will save one life, nothing that will put one brutal policeman in jail. Nothing. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, the gentleman who just spoke referred to the collective bargaining provision. He apparently hasn't read the bill. That provision is in the bill. I suggest he read the bill. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, the gentleman stated a moment ago, I think he said 60 or 65 percent of police officers who got qualified immunity did not violate the constitutional rights of the victims. Well, he is conceding, in other words, that in 40 or 30 percent, or whatever it is, of the time when qualified immunity is granted and holds officers unaccountable, they have violated the constitutional rights of the victims. That is one of the reasons why we must change the doctrine of qualified immunity. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the distinguished majority whip of the House.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).