Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, this year, our Republican majority has wasted time passing three different but equally meaningless resolutions related to the Biden administration's immigration policies. This week, we debated a fourth. We now move on to yet another meaningless and poorly written piece of immigration legislation. Just like the four resolutions, this bill is full of empty rhetoric that will do nothing to solve the situation at the border. Not a single dollar will go to help our law enforcement agents at the border as a result of this bill. Not a single person will be denied entry to this country as a result of this bill. Not a single community will be made safer as a result of this bill. It is just another stale attempt to demonize and fearmonger about immigrants wrapped in fresh packaging. The bill itself is an oddly written and thrown together reporting bill that claims to require the Attorney General to produce a report on the impact of the Biden border crisis on Federal, State and Tribal law enforcement. When it comes to reporting bills, I am usually supportive. It is essential for us to conduct oversight of the executive branch, and reports are an important way to do that. Unfortunately, this bill is such a sham and is riddled with so much misinformation and blatantly partisan political rhetoric masquerading as fact that I cannot support it. Here is just one example of how poorly written the bill is. It requires the Attorney General to report on the impact of the so-called Biden border crisis without defining that term. Without a definition, the term is meaningless, and the Attorney General would have no guidance to know what data the report should actually contain. The obvious cheap political rhetoric exposes this legislation as an unserious messaging bill. Beyond that, in a world where my Republican colleagues consistently say that they do not trust the Attorney General to carry out their intent, the lack of definitions makes little sense. The bill also attempts, incorrectly, to paint undocumented migrants as being the primary source of fentanyl brought into the country, when we know that this is not true. The vast majority of fentanyl is seized at ports of entry, trafficked by U.S. citizens. Over 86 percent of those convicted for fentanyl-related drug trafficking convictions are U.S. citizens. Furthermore, cartels are not risking their product on people who illicitly cross the border between points of entry. In fiscal year 2023, CBP seized approximately 27,000 pounds of fentanyl. Less than 10 percent of those drugs were seized by the Border Patrol. The vast majority, or roughly 90 percent of fentanyl, was seized by the Office of Field Operations, which mans the ports of entry. Lastly, the bill asks the Attorney General to report on the resources devoted to addressing the border and the resources that are ``not available to law enforcement agencies.'' However, at every turn, it has been Republicans who have voted against giving DHS the resources it needs to do its job. In 2021, all but six current House Republicans voted against the bipartisan infrastructure deal, which provided additional funding to modernize ports of entry and allow for nonintrusive inspections to combat the smuggling of people and drugs. Likewise, all but two current House Republicans voted against providing robust funding for Customs and Border Protection and border security operations in the FY 2023 appropriations omnibus legislation. That bill provided more than $17 billion to CBP, including $60 million to hire an additional 125 CBP officers and $70 million for nonintrusive inspection technology to detect narcotics and firearms at ports of entry. When it comes to the President's supplemental request, which would provide $14 billion for border security, we have not had a single hearing, let alone a vote on the request. The President has requested vital funds for 375 immigration judges and 1,600 asylum officers to speed up processing of asylum claims so that people could get their asylum claims adjudicated in weeks, not in years. The Republicans are fond of talking about catch and release, but that is because it takes years for someone to get his asylum case adjudicated. The President has requested these funds, and if he got the 375 immigration judges and 1,600 asylum officers as well as the funds, you would adjudicate these cases in weeks, not years. He has also asked for funds for additional personnel at ports of entry and technology to stop drugs from coming into the country. The Republicans have said no. As a final indication of just how unserious this bill is, its findings state that Congress should pass and the President should sign into law ``strong border security legislation.'' Never mind the fact that it was House Republicans who walked away from a bill negotiated by one of the most conservative Members of the Senate, a bill that Senator McConnell called the toughest border bill in 30 years, all because Donald Trump told them he wanted the issue for the election, not a solution. Now, I know my Republican friends will say, well, there is H.R. 2, which is a better bill. Well, I don't know whether it is a better bill, but it is a bill that cannot pass. It could not get more than 32 votes in the Senate with 49 Republican Members. You don't get strong border security legislation by passing congressional resolutions and reports. You have to do the hard work of legislating, but that appears to be far beyond the capacity of this Republican majority. Instead, they are reduced to pointless bills like this that accomplish nothing and are full of misleading talking points. We deserve better than this waste of time. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My friend from New York talks about the Biden border crisis, and he talks about the bill that failed in the Senate because the former President, former President Trump, told the Senate, told Republicans not to vote for it because he wanted an issue. He didn't want the problem solved; he wanted an issue. He said it in his own words. Congressman Nehls said it in his own words. H.R. 2, which they claim to support, in fact, would never get more than 32 votes in a 49 Republican Member Senate. Republicans didn't support it, never mind the Democrats. The only viable bill was the bill negotiated by Mitch McConnell and Senator Lankford. It was the most conservative bill in a generation, and one that was supported by the union representing the Border Patrol people. However, that bill was killed because President Trump wanted no progress and said so. At least he was honest about it. He said: I don't want any progress in this area. I want an issue. My Republican friends are talking about the issue that could have been solved by now if it weren't for President Trump's ordering them not to solve it. We will hear a lot of rhetoric about solving a problem when they are participating in what amounts to a plot not to solve the problem by passing the strict bill that could have been passed, that was supported by and that is supported by the union representing the border patrolmen and could actually solve the problem. They don't want to solve the problem. They just want to talk about the problem. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would update the report required by this bill to include the nationality of any noncitizen who exposes a law enforcement officer to fentanyl during an encounter at the border and in the United States. Just like the underlying bill, this amendment is another attempt to incorrectly paint undocumented migrants as being the prime source of fentanyl brought into the country. We already know that the vast majority of fentanyl is seized at ports of entry, trafficked by U.S. citizens. As I stated previously, in fiscal year 2023, CBP seized approximately 27,000 pounds of fentanyl. Less than 10 percent of these drugs were seized by the Border Patrol. The vast majority, roughly 90 percent of the fentanyl was seized by the Office of Field Operations, which mans the ports of entry. My Republican colleagues always respond that this is the case because ports of entry are where we have resources to interdict the drugs, but this is also wrong. Unfortunately, because Republicans refuse to adequately fund ports of entry, only 2 percent of passenger vehicles and 16 percent of commercial vehicles are inspected. We would likely catch even more drugs carried in by U.S. citizens if CBP had all the resources it needed. However, at every turn, it has been Republicans who have voted against giving DHS the resources it needs to do its job. This bill is so full of misinformation and could actually use some facts, so I will not oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would update the findings section of this bill to include a provision that states that it is in the best interests of law enforcement officers and the communities they serve for President Biden to use section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to secure the southern border. To be clear, the President does not have the authority to unilaterally shut down the border. President Biden cannot simply use Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to prevent immigrants from crossing the border. In fact, when President Trump tried to do exactly that in 2018, he was immediately shot down by the courts. Moreover, enforcement-only solutions don't work. The best way to secure the border is to expand lawful pathways and to adequately fund the immigration system. We have not updated our legal immigration system in over 30 years. The more broken the legal immigration system is, the more people will try to come to the border as the only means of entry. This notion that the President has all the authority, not to mention the resources, that he needs to solve all the issues at the border with a stroke of his pen is a fantasy. Congress must work together to provide the legal tools and the resources necessary to address the border crisis. I know that there are Democrats willing to put in the hard work, but we have yet to find any House Republicans who are willing to do so. This amendment is as unserious as the underlying bill. I will oppose both, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I speak on the LEOSA Reform Act, let me express my deep disappointment in the behavior of the Judiciary Committee majority. The Judiciary Committee is now considering a resolution to hold in contempt the Attorney General of the United States for refusing to submit certain audio recordings to the committee. I think it is a deeply wrong request. I have expressed my opinion in committee. I am not going to go through it again here. The point is, we have a series of Judiciary Committee bills now, and the Judiciary Committee is meeting on that resolution now. Members of the Judiciary Committee who may want to speak on this series of bills we are going to be considering now cannot because they are trapped in the Judiciary Committee considering the contempt resolution. I cannot vote against the contempt resolution because I am stuck here. It is normally the practice that when you have committee business on the floor, you suspend the committee meeting so that people can do their work. I very much protest that the committee is still meeting while we have committee bills on the floor so that I must choose between dealing with these bills or voting on the contempt citation, and other members of the committee cannot be here to debate these bills. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the LEOSA Reform Act. This bill threatens the safety of all Americans by advancing the Republican agenda of more guns for more people in more public places. In 2004, Congress enacted the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, or LEOSA, which forced States to allow off-duty and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons even when doing so conflicted with that State's concealed carry laws. It garnered bipartisan opposition, including from the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time, Mr. Sensenbrenner, because it supplanted the judgment of the States about the appropriate use of firearms. It was also opposed by organizations such as the International Chiefs of Police, which was concerned that it could endanger law enforcement by causing confusion among local police who might not be able to distinguish between a criminal and the retired officer using a firearm. Other organizations opposed it because it could put police agencies at risk for liability for an officer who misuses a weapon in another State and because the requirements for retired officers were insufficient. Despite these objections, LEOSA became law, but importantly, it included exceptions for places like government buildings, gun-free school zones, and private property where States have a special interest in retaining control of their gun safety laws. These exceptions have been in place for 20 years and have served as important protections, but this legislation tosses those exceptions out the window. It forces States to allow off-duty and retired officers to carry firearms on playgrounds, in government buildings, and on buses, trains, subways, and boats. It undermines State laws limiting magazine capacity. It reduces the rights of private property owners who may not want concealed weapons on their property or in their businesses. It relaxes training standards so that some people will be able to carry a concealed firearm, even though it has been 3 years since their last firearms training certification. In addition, this legislation unravels Federal laws that have kept firearms out of Federal facilities. It does this for Federal facilities that are ``open to the public'' that are classified as ``Facility Security Level I or II,'' definitions that will create significant confusion for those trying to abide by it and for those tasked with enforcing it. For example, if a Federal facility is only partially open to the public or only open to the public during certain hours, does it fall within the bill's definition? We don't know. What about a facility that is open to the public so long as they are not carrying firearms? The bill does not say. As the bill itself states, the Facility Security Level is determined on a facility-by-facility basis and may not be publicly posted, so it is virtually impossible to know what Federal facilities are included in this definition. We looked for a listing of Federal facilities that are classified at these security levels, and we could not find one. Members may even have offices in Federal facilities that will suddenly be forced to allow concealed firearms in their doors as a result of this legislation. Not only would this bill inject confusion into Federal law, but it also intrudes on private property rights and undermines States' careful determinations on how best to protect their citizens from gun violence. I urge members to join me in opposing this misguided legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this legislation intrudes on the States' ability to make their own judgments about public safety, concealed firearms, and the regulation of their own law enforcement and would make us all less safe. We hear from the other side of the aisle all the time about States' rights. Then, we get legislation like this that overrules the States and says we know best about issues of public safety. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues like to talk a big game when it comes to immigration and border security. They have a long list of grievances against the Biden administration and a lot of tough talk about what should be done, but when it actually comes to doing something about it, doing the hard work of legislating and finding meaningful solutions to real problems, that is where they come up short. Instead, they resort to bringing up completely meaningless nonbinding resolutions that allow them to shake their fists and to demonize immigrants for a little while, accomplishing absolutely nothing. They can't even manage to bring up a simple resolution honoring law enforcement officers during Police Week. They have to turn everything into a broadside against the Biden administration and an excuse to play politics on immigration. For the fourth time in 5 months, Republicans are bringing forth an empty resolution that will do absolutely nothing to address the situation at the border or to repair our broken immigration system. They have completely given up on developing solutions because Donald Trump told them that he wanted to preserve the issue for the upcoming election. He wanted the issue, and he did not want them to solve the problem, so they walked away from a bipartisan deal negotiated by one of the most conservative Members of the Senate. Instead, all they have to offer is meaningless resolution after meaningless resolution, each one a useless rehash of the last. Like the others, this one recycles misleading statistics and constructs a false narrative while accomplishing nothing. That would be bad enough, but it also includes language that is false and downright offensive, such as, ``Democrat elected officials prioritize illegal alien criminals over citizens and legal residents of the United States.'' That is an outrageous assertion that is beneath the dignity of this House. We can have honest debates about policy, but questioning our loyalty to the American people is a disgusting slander and should be an embarrassment to anyone who supports this resolution. Madam Speaker, we know that the best way to secure the border is to expand legal pathways and to adequately fund the immigration system. We have not updated our legal immigration system in 30 years. The more broken the legal immigration system is, the more people will try to come to the border as the only means of entry. Because Republicans refuse to support President Biden's supplemental funding request, we don't have the resources we need to secure the border and to provide additional support for communities receiving migrants. We need more Border Patrol agents, more immigration judges, and more asylum officers so that asylum cases can be heard in weeks, not years. The Republicans talk about catch and release, but that is because the asylum cases take years. If we funded what the President requested for more immigration judges, more asylum officers, not to mention more Border Patrol agents, asylum cases would be heard in weeks, not years, and you wouldn't have this catch and release problem. We need more CBP officers and new detection technology to counter fentanyl. We need to modernize our ports of entry to combat the smuggling of people and drugs. Unfortunately, when it comes to providing the resources necessary to address these critical needs, Republicans have consistently voted ``no.'' If there is a nonbinding resolution full of demagoguery and fearmongering, then they are the first in line to support it. Madam Speaker, we can do better. We must do better. I urge Members to oppose this resolution, 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 am ready to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have heard about the Senate bill, that it wasn't strong enough. It was strong enough so that Senator McConnell supported it. Senator Lankford, one of the most conservative Senators in the Senate, supported it. It was going to pass until President Trump said: I don't want this problem solved. I want an issue for the election. Then suddenly it was stopped. Then we are told about H.R. 2. H.R. 2 was such a terrible bill that it couldn't get more than 32 votes in the Senate, a Senate with 49 Republican Senators. So don't tell me about H.R. 2. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is cloaked in language ostensibly honoring law enforcement, but it is really just another excuse for Republicans to play politics with the southern border and to sound tough without actually doing anything. I am glad that the kind of thing they are talking about doing isn't being done. They say: Turn back to President Trump. President Trump separated thousands of children from their parents, little children, many whom even today cannot be identified and returned to their parents. I don't think this country wants a return to that kind of policy. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this pointless resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, this bill is more cheap talk from Republicans. Nothing in this bill makes a single officer safer or invests a single dollar in officer wellness. This legislation falls far short of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which would invest in better data collection and reporting by requiring law enforcement agencies to report uses of force by or against law enforcement officers as a condition of the receipt of certain grants. House Republicans are, again, refusing to work with police and the organizations that represent the police to pass meaningful legislation. This legislation is a missed opportunity. It calls for a report that duplicates existing reporting requirements. It falls far short of meaningful progress in officer safety, and it represents an enormous step backward from the legislation offered by the Democratic majority in the 117th Congress. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation so that we can work together on bipartisan legislation that will really enhance the safety of our officers and our communities. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York, the Honorable Timothy M. Kennedy, 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 introduce Congressman-elect Tim Kennedy. I can think of no better person to represent New York's 26th Congressional District and succeed our friend Brian Higgins than Tim Kennedy. As a lifelong resident of Buffalo who grew up in a blue-collar family, Tim embodies the values of hard work, family, and fighting for the little guy that makes western New York so great. As a New York State senator for over 13 years, Tim has been a formidable advocate for our region. As chair of the New York Senate Transportation Committee, he secured a historic $100 million for the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, helped deliver record investment for our roads and transportation networks, and spearheaded legislation enhancing transportation safety and accountability. Beyond transportation, Tim has been a long-time champion for western New York's workforce and economic development, which is evidenced through his support for the Northland Workforce Center and the revitalization of Buffalo's iconic Central Terminal. As he steps into his new role, I speak on behalf of the entire New York congressional delegation, and we are confident that Tim Kennedy will continue to fight tirelessly for the prosperity and safety of our community. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Kennedy), our newest Member.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Dr. Benjamin Talus for nearly three years of outstanding service to the constituents of New York's 12th Congressional District. Ben's career in the Capitol began as a House Page in 2009, where he was one of the last Pages to serve the House. A native of the Philadelphia suburbs, Ben's career has taken him far and wide, providing him with diverse experiences that helped cultivate his sound political judgment I have come to rely on daily Ben returned to DC in 2010 to pursue his bachelor's degree in foreign service at Georgetown University. In 2013, he interned for Hillary Clinton as she transitioned out of her role as Secretary of State and back into private life. This experience earned him a communications role with the Clinton Foundation following his graduation in 2014. In this role, he staffed former President Bill Clinton, riding alongside the Secret Service at events across the country. Directly advising one of the most powerful women in the world wasn't the most rewarding part of his tenure at the Foundation, however. It was where Ben met his future wife, Allie Gottlieb. Together, they went on to move to Miami where they worked together to send former HHS Secretary Donna Shalala to Congress. After Congresswoman Shalala's victory in 2019, they relocated back to Washington, where Ben served as Senior Policy Advisor until 2021, when he joined my team as my Foreign Policy Advisor. Ben dutifully supported my role as the most senior Jewish Member of Congress, advising not only myself, but also other Members looking to his foreign policy expertise. In the wake of the Israel-Hamas war, Ben has been working around the clock, fielding calls from other Members, stakeholder groups, and myself as we work to respond to the crisis. Ben's deep, complex understanding of the Jewish community and my district have been indispensable, and I could not be more grateful to have had him by my side during this difficult time. Ben's time in my office was marked several personal milestones--he married Allie, earned both a master's and a doctoral degree in international relations from Johns Hopkins, and adopted Teddy, his Lagotto Romagnolo puppy that is often the topic of office discussion. While his departure will be a profound loss for the House and my team, I'm pleased he won't be going far as he is moving to New York for his next chapter in the private sector. I look forward to seeing all he will accomplish, and most importantly, seeing Teddy enjoy Central Park as Ben practices his agogo in the meadow.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this country is facing real problems. There is an erosion of trust in our government and institutions. The right to bodily autonomy is under attack across the Nation. The State of Maryland needs assistance in rebuilding the Francis Scott Key Bridge so that the Port of Baltimore, whose economic impact touches communities across the country, can reopen. Our immigration system cannot function because Congress has failed to reform it for over 30 years. Instead of responding to these problems, House Republicans are wasting our time, yet again, on another meaningless immigration resolution. At Donald Trump's direction, they refuse to work toward solutions for our broken immigration system, so instead, all they have to offer is a bunch of empty rhetoric. This resolution, like the others we have considered in recent months, will do nothing to solve the situation at the border. Not a single dollar will go to help our law enforcement agents at the border as a result of this resolution. Not a single person will be denied unlawful entry to this country as a result of this resolution. Not a single community will be made safer as a result of this resolution. This resolution is nothing more than a highlight reel of the dubious talking points of immigration that we have heard over and over from Republicans since President Biden was sworn into office. It is the same legislating by press release that we have become accustomed to in this historically unproductive Congress. The resolution itself is simply a rehash of the resolution we passed a few weeks ago. Republicans are so out of ideas that it even has the same exact title and much of the same content as the last resolution. That resolution listed all the ways that President Biden supposedly could secure the border and essentially asks the administration to reverse every policy it has implemented on immigration, even though we know that doing so would not be effective. Today's resolution simply lists most of those policies again, and this time it just condemns the administration. What a waste of time. It is important to remember how we got here. Earlier this Congress, House Republicans passed their partisan, cruel, and unworkable border bill, H.R. 2. Republicans spent a year saying that H.R. 2 is the only way to secure the border, even though they know that it cannot become law, having failed twice to pass the Senate, receiving just 32 votes earlier this year. Then they insisted that the price of helping to protect Ukraine against Russian aggression was enacting harsh border enforcement legislation. Senate Republicans even managed to convince some Democrats to agree on a very harsh border bill in the Senate, a bill that Minority Leader McConnell called the toughest border bill in 30 years, but Republicans could not take ``yes'' for an answer. Donald Trump said that he didn't want to do anything that might actually help at the border in an election year because he wants immigration as a campaign issue. Other Republicans quickly agreed. Folding to the cult of Donald Trump, Speaker Johnson declared the bill dead on arrival in the House with the rest of the Republican Conference quickly falling in line. Republicans showed clearly what Democrats have been saying over and over again, that they don't want to do anything that would really help address our broken immigration system. They clearly have given up. Instead of solving the problem, Republicans merely want to continue to weaponize the border as a political issue for the election year with pointless votes on meaningless resolutions that accomplish nothing and are full of misleading information. Let's review the facts once again. The resolution complains that the Biden administration is not removing enough people. However, the administration is removing people at a very significant pace and in ways that I am concerned may present some due process violations. Since the end of title 42 last May, the Biden administration has removed or returned over 630,000 individuals and members of family units, just since last May. This is more than the number of people removed or returned in all of fiscal year 2019 under the Trump administration. The resolution also alleges that the Biden administration is violating the mandatory detention statutes by not detaining enough people. However, no administration, including the Trump administration, has ever been able to comply with those statutes because no Congress has ever appropriated the extraordinary levels of funding such compliance would require. To detain everyone that the law requires to be held in mandatory detention would require Congress to appropriate over $35 billion a year, a number 10 times higher than what Congress appropriated this year or then-President Trump ever requested for detention. When Democrats have proposed giving DHS the resources it needs to do its job, the Republicans have consistently said ``no''. We need to work together to address our broken immigration system. Enforcement alone cannot fix it. We know this because an enforcement- only approach has largely failed for three decades. We need to update our immigration system so that it meets the needs of our country. We need a balanced, bipartisan approach that expands lawful pathways. This will help relieve pressure on the border and allow people to come to this country in an orderly and efficient way, but Republicans don't want to engage in real legislating that might actually solve problems and deliver meaningful reform. They want to continue to demagogue and fearmonger with meaningless resolutions containing nothing but empty rhetoric designed to score cheap political points. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman of three things that he seems to have forgotten. One, just since the end of title 42 last May, the Biden administration has removed or returned over 630,000 individuals and members of family units. This is more than the number of people removed or returned in all of fiscal year 2019 under the Trump administration. I would also remind the gentleman that this legislation does nothing. It simply denounces the Biden administration. It does nothing. It has no operable clause. It is pure propaganda for political reasons. It does nothing to solve the immigration problem. Third, I would remind the gentleman that the Senate negotiated a very strong immigration bill approved by Senator Lankford, the second-most conservative Member of the Senate. Mitch McConnell said it was the strongest immigration bill he had ever seen. The Senate was willing to pass it until former President Trump said, don't pass it because I would rather have an election issue than solve the problem. The fault for the immigration problem now is President Trump's for preventing the Senate from passing that bill and the Republicans' fault for going along with him politically. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. All the Members on the other side forget several things. They forget that we had the strongest border bill that might have gone a long way toward solving this problem that the Senate was willing to pass, but President Trump said don't pass. He said in so many words: I don't want a solution; I want a campaign issue. They forget that the President has asked for a lot more money so that instead of someone coming in and claiming asylum--maybe he deserves it; maybe he doesn't--and getting a date in court 5 years later and then disappearing, you would have enough judges to give him a date in a couple of weeks and either grant him asylum if he is entitled to it or deport him swiftly if he is not entitled to it. The Republicans won't vote the money and they won't vote the bill that would solve or go a long way toward solving the problem. They also forget that this resolution doesn't do anything. All it does is denounce Biden. That is all they have for this Congress, resolution after resolution denouncing Biden, and H.R. 2, which is so impossible that it got only 32 votes in the Senate, a Senate where there are 49 Republican Senators. They don't want to solve the problem. They just want to talk about it. That is all they are doing about it now. It is total nonsense and not worthy of the time of this body. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentlemen and gentlewomen on the other side of the aisle that when you talk about various victims of migrant crime, the FBI statistics show that the percentage of crime committed by migrants is lower than the percentage of crime committed by native-born Americans. Migrants, legal and illegal, seem to be more law-abiding, on average, than native-born Americans. So, to use a specific example to say that this is the fault of the immigration policy is nonsense. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, whatever complaints House Republicans may have with the Biden administration's immigration policies, this resolution will do absolutely nothing to address them. They have had plenty of opportunities to work with Democrats on bipartisan solutions to reform our broken immigration system, and they have walked away time and again. Most recently, they rejected a bipartisan border deal negotiated by one of the most conservative Republicans in the Senate because Donald Trump told them to. He and they would rather preserve the issue for the upcoming election than actually work to solve problems. So, here we are again, for the third time already this year, with a meaningless, nonbinding resolution that talks tough and accomplishes nothing. What better way to sum up this Republican Congress? Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this meaningless resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.