Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I am deeply concerned that any Member of the House would spout Russian propaganda on the floor of the House. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins).

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, has a tagline about the clock and the calendar. Madam Speaker, this is not about the clock and the calendar. It is about corruption and the Constitution. It is about a President who abuses power to coerce an ally to intervene in our election and poses a continuing threat to the integrity of our next election. The President's defense is built on three pillars, and when those three pillars fall, the entire defense of the President collapses. First, they claim there was no quid pro quo. Well, the evidence is undisputed. President Trump conditioned a White House visit and military aid on President Zelensky's public announcement of the investigations. Ambassador William Taylor wrote at the time, ``I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.'' A reporter asked White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney if there had been a quid pro quo here, and he replied, ``We do that all the time. Get over it.'' The President refused to help our ally until he got a personal political favor, and so the first defense falls. Second, the minority claims that the Ukrainians didn't know about the hold. The evidence, again, is undisputed. Ukraine knew about the hold on the military assistance within hours of the President's July 25 call. Laura Cooper of the Department of Defense testified under oath that on July 25 the State Department sent two emails to the Department of Defense notifying them that Ukrainian officials were asking, Where is the aid? The Ukrainians understood exactly what President Trump was asking. He wanted a personal political favor before the aid was released. And so the second defense falls. Third, and finally, my Republican friends say the aid was released. But the aid was released only after the President got caught. This House launched its investigation on September 9. The hold on the aid was lifted on September 11. This is not evidence of innocence. It is evidence of culpability. The evidence is overwhelming. And when the President got caught, he did everything in his power to prevent the American people from learning the truth about his actions by defying the congressional investigation, by ordering that all requests and demands for information be denied. With our national security and the integrity of our election at risk, we must act, not because of the clock and the calendar, but to fight against corruption and for continued self-government by the American people. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I now inform you that the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) the chair of the Intelligence Committee, will now serve as my designee and will control the remainder of the time on the majority side.

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 758, I call up the bill (H.R. 5038) 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. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 5038.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5038, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, is vital legislation that will address an issue of critical national importance: the growing labor challenges damaging the American agricultural sector. Solving this issue is crucial not only from an economic standpoint, but, also, it is a matter of national security. The less we grow our own food, the more dependent we become on food imports and the more vulnerable we become to food contamination, epidemics, fluctuating market prices, and increased national debt. Today, food imports account for approximately 32 percent of the fresh vegetables and 55 percent of the fresh fruit that we consume. Systemic labor challenges are one of the main reasons for this increase in agricultural imports. The United States has seen a continuing decline in the number of family farmworkers and fewer U.S. workers are turning to farm work as their chosen pursuit. As a result, 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. Due in large part to these outdated laws, undocumented workers now comprise about half of the farm 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. 5038 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. We have seen many attempts to solve this issue through legislation while I have been in Congress. I am pleased that today, we finally have a bipartisan, balanced solution, one that we should all be able to support. This bill is a victory for farmers who have struggled with persistent labor challenges for decades. It is also a victory for farmworkers, who have worked tirelessly to grow and harvest food for our Nation 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. 5038 is the right solution. I hope my colleagues will find the courage to vote today in favor of providing a seat at America's table for those who are responsible for providing the food that we serve on all our tables. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), my friend and colleague, and 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, and I urge all of my colleagues to do what is right and to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, December 9, 2019. Hon. Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Nadler: In recognition of the desire to expedite consideration of H.R. 5038, the ``Farm Workforce Modernization Act of 2019,'' the Committee on Ways and Means agrees to waive formal consideration of the bill as to provisions that fall within the rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. The Committee on Ways and Means takes this action with the mutual understanding that we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or similar legislation, and the Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may address any remaining issues within our jurisdiction. The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this or similar legislation. Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming this understanding and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letter on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during floor consideration of H.R. 5038. Sincerely, Richard E. Neal, Chairman.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) control the remainder of the time on the majority side.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 741, I call up the bill (H.R. 4) to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to revise the criteria for determining which States and political subdivisions are subject to section 4 of the Act, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 4.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019. H.R. 4 is comprehensive and much-needed legislation to restore the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to its full vitality. This bill responds to the Supreme Court's disastrous 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively gutted the act's most important enforcement mechanism, section 5, which requires jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting to obtain Justice Department or Federal court approval before any changes to their voting laws can take effect. The Court struck down the coverage formula that determined which jurisdictions would be subject to preclearance, but it expressly said that Congress could draft another formula based on current conditions. That, among other things, is exactly what H.R. 4 does. This bill is the result of an extensive process that included 18 hearings before three different House committees. This process developed a record demonstrating that States and localities and, in particular, those that were formerly subject to preclearance, have engaged in various voter suppression tactics, such as imposing burdensome proof of citizenship laws, polling place closures, purges of voter rolls, and significant scale-backs to early voting periods. These kinds of voting restrictions have a disproportionate and negative impact on racial and language minority voters and deprive them of a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. In short, the record is clear that substantial voter suppression exists across the country and that H.R. 4's coverage formula is necessary to address this discrimination. This legislation not only updates the existing formula to ensure that it accounts for current conditions, but it is also designed so that the formula will update itself regularly as conditions change, thereby directly responding to the Court's concern in Shelby County. Not surprisingly, the suspension of preclearance unleashed a deluge of voter suppression laws across the Nation, making restoration of this tool even more necessary. As we consider the record and the need for H.R. 4, it is worth remembering why Congress enacted preclearance in the first place. Before the Voting Rights Act, we saw, essentially, a game of whack-a- mole in which States and localities could engage in voter suppression, secure in the knowledge that any discriminatory law that was struck down by a court could quickly be replaced by another. Preclearance successfully put an end to this game of whack-a-mole. I want to thank Terri Sewell for crafting this important legislation and for her efforts over the last several years on this bill. I also want to recognize the leadership of Marcia Fudge, chair of the House Administration's Subcommittee on Elections, for her extraordinary work in conducting numerous field hearings examining voting problems around the country, as well as Constitution Subcommittee Chairman Steve Cohen, who presided over many hearings in the Judiciary Committee to develop the substantial record on which this legislation is based. The Voting Rights Act represents one of the Nation's most important civil rights victories, one achieved by those who marched, struggled, and even died to secure the right to vote for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to honor their sacrifices and to enable section 5 once again to protect the rights of all Americans to vote. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) control the remainder of the time on the majority side.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each side.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).