Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I devoted much of my life to combating anti-Semitism, and I am as attuned as anyone to threats and bigotry aimed at Jewish people. I will take lectures from no one about the need for vigorous efforts to fight anti-Semitism on campus or anywhere else. I am also a deeply committed Zionist who firmly believes in Israel's right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people. However, as someone who is also a longtime champion of protecting freedom of speech, I must oppose this misguided bill. While there is much in the bill I agree with, its core provision would put a thumb on the scale in favor of one particular definition of anti-Semitism to the exclusion of all others, to be used when the Department of Education assesses claims of anti-Semitism on campus. This definition adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, includes ``contemporary examples of anti-Semitism.'' The problem is that these examples may include protected speech in some contexts, particularly with respect to criticism of the State of Israel. To be clear, I vehemently disagree with the sentiments toward Israel expressed in those examples, and too often criticism of Israel does, in fact, take the form of virulent anti-Semitism. Many Jewish students no longer feel safe on campus, and some colleges have not done nearly enough to protect them. However, while this definition and its examples may have useful applications in certain contexts, by effectively codifying them into title VI, this bill threatens to chill constitutionally protected speech. Speech that is critical of Israel alone does not constitute unlawful discrimination. By encompassing purely political speech about Israel into title VI's ambit, the bill sweeps too broadly. As the ACLU notes, if this legislation were to become law, colleges and universities that want to avoid title VI investigations or the potential loss of Federal funding could end up suppressing protected speech that is criticizing Israel or supporting Palestinians. Moreover, it could result in students and faculty self-censoring their political speech. Even the IHRA definition's lead author, Kenneth Stern, opposes codifying the definition that he wrote, the IHRA definition, for this reason. Vigorous enforcement of the Federal civil rights law does not depend on defining terms like ``anti-Semitism'' or ``racism.'' In fact, codifying one definition of anti-Semitism to the exclusion of all other possible definitions could actually undermine Federal civil rights law because anti-Semitism, like other forms of bigotry, evolves over time, and future conduct that comes to be widely understood as anti-Semitic may no longer meet the statutory definition. Mr. Speaker, we cannot ignore the context in which this legislation is being rushed to the floor in a cynical attempt to exploit, for political gain, the deep divisions currently on display at college campuses across the country. Much of this activity, whether you agree with the sentiments expressed at these protests or not, constitutes legally protected speech and expression. Some participants, shamefully, have exhibited anti-Semitic conduct, and the Department of Education will rightfully investigate them, consulting the IHRA definition and other relevant definitions in the process. They do not need this legislation to help them with their inquiries. Some students have even crossed the line into vandalism, destruction of private property, and willful disruption of campus life. They too will face legal consequences, and nothing in this bill will affect that. There is no excuse for bigotry, threats, or violence directed at anyone, anywhere, and it is imperative that we confront the scourge of anti-Semitism. Congress can help, but this legislation is not the answer. Instead of engaging in political theatrics that do not do anything concrete to stop anti-Semitism on campus, we need to put our money where our mouth is. Last year, the Biden administration outlined a comprehensive national strategy to counter anti-Semitism, the cornerstone of which was increasing enforcement actions by the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education. President Biden's budget called for a 27 percent increase in funding for that office. If my Republican colleagues are serious about fighting anti-Semitism, they would have fully funded that request. Instead, they bragged about proposing to slash funding by 25 percent, funding to enforce the laws against anti-Semitism on campus. They bragged about proposing to slash funding by 25 percent and ultimately insisted that funding be kept flat despite the marked increase in anti-Semitism complaints. If my Republican colleagues are serious about anti- Semitism, we would be considering legislation to codify the national strategy today instead of fiddling with definitions. If my Republican colleagues were serious about anti-Semitism, they would have spoken up after neo-Nazis in Charlottesville chanted: ``Jews will not replace us.'' If my Republican colleagues were serious about anti-Semitism, they would have spoken up when President Trump declared that there were ``very fine people on both sides'' of that rally. Additionally, just last week, former President Trump downplayed what happened in Charlottesville, calling it a ``peanut'' compared to recent campus protests of the Israel-Gaza war, and we heard crickets from the Republicans. We hear nothing from our Republican colleagues when some conservatives repeated anti-Semitic tropes about George Soros or others. I say to my Republican friends: For too long, your selective silence on these matters has been deafening. If you mean what you say here today and if you believe that the threats and vitriol that Jewish students face on college campuses is unjust and that combatting anti- Semitism is more than a convenient talking point in your politically motivated crusade against institutions of higher education, then I beseech you: Please move beyond pointless gestures and posturing and actually help us protect Jewish students. Fully fund the administration's efforts to counter anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination. Our Nation's students deserve no less. By contrast, this legislation threatens freedom of speech, one of our most cherished values, while doing nothing to combat anti-Semitism. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge Members to oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's remarks are slanderous. First of all, the bill that I cosponsored 2 years ago was a different bill. It did not exclude--let me read from this bill: ``The use of alternative definitions of anti-Semitism impairs enforcement efforts by adding multiple standards and may fail to identify many of the modern manifestations of anti-Semitism.'' That is nonsense, and it was not in the bill that was, I think, about 7 or 8 years ago. The two bills are different. Second, I oppose this bill because it infringes on freedom of speech, and there are Jewish groups, such as Reconstructionist Judaism, J Street and T'ruah that oppose this bill for the same reason, and they are not anti-Semitic. There are Jewish groups that support the bill. There are Jewish groups that oppose the bill. I have been a supporter of Israel and of Zionism, and an opponent of anti-Semitism all my life. I have been active in Zionist organizations ever since I was in high school, and to say that anyone who votes against this bill is supporting anti-Semitism is a disgrace. There are differences of opinion that occur on this floor from time to time, honest differences. Someone who opposes this bill may think that it infringes on freedom of speech. Someone who opposes this bill may note that the author of the IHRA definition that this would enshrine in law said don't codify it. The author, Kenneth Stern, said this is a good working definition that may indicate anti-Semitism. So are the other two, but it should not be codified into law because that could make, depending on the circumstances, free speech illegal. The author of the IHRA definition said that. There may be legitimate differences of opinion between those who support this bill and those who oppose this bill, but to say that anyone who opposes this bill supports anti-Semitism is a disgraceful slander. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, every bit of conduct that Mr. Molinaro described is loathsome, as he says, but that does not mean that we ought to pass a bill that threatens freedom of speech. This bill will do nothing to help stamp out anti-Semitism on campuses or anywhere else, but it will threaten free speech for the reasons I stated before. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, anti-Semitism is a terrible thing. Hamas is a genocidal organization which wants to kill all Jews, not just the State of Israel. There is no question about that. There is no question we have to fight anti-Semitism. There is no question the Manning bill is a good step in that direction. There is no question we ought to give the Office for Civil Rights the 25 percent increase the President has requested to enforce title VI on college campuses where there has been no question there has been vile anti-Semitism. That, however, does not mean we should pass this bill. This bill enshrines the IHRA definition, and I would remind you that the IHRA definition's chief author, Kenneth Stern said: Don't codify it in law because if codified into law, it would be destructive of free speech. The author of the IHRA definition said that. The bill also specifically excludes the Jerusalem and Nexus definitions. There is no good reason for that. All three definitions give examples of things that may be seen as anti-Semitism, that may indicate anti-Semitism. None of them should be codified into law, as this bill would do for one of them. I don't know why one and not the other two, but this bill would enshrine one of them into law against the will of its own author, who said this is my best definition, but don't enshrine it into law, or, rather, don't codify it into law because if it is made law, it could infringe free expression, and that is why not only the ACLU, but J Street, T'ruah, the Reconstructionist Jewish Movement, and a dozen other Jewish groups oppose this law, not because they support anti- Semitism--they obviously don't--but because they both oppose anti- Semitism and support freedom of speech, and those of us who oppose anti-Semitism and support freedom of speech ought to vote ``no'' on this bill.

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 yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support meaningful action to combat anti- Semitism. Unfortunately, that is not the legislation before us. We risk threatening freedom of speech while providing no new tools that the Department of Education does not already have to investigate claims of anti-Semitism. The White House has developed a strong blueprint for countering anti- Semitism, and there is already legislation to implement these policies. We should be working together to pass that legislation and to provide our civil rights enforcement agencies with the resources they need to address anti-Semitism wherever it occurs. This legislation is a distraction from the important work ahead of us to protect our students and all those who face discrimination. Not only is it a distraction, but it also threatens freedom of speech. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the tremendous accomplishments of Kevin O'Keefe, a dedicated community leader in East Midtown Manhattan. Kevin has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to our community through his roles as the founder and president of the St. Vartan Park Conservancy, the president of the Manhattan East Community Association, a member of Manhattan Community Board 6, a trustee of the Murray Hill Neighborhood Association, a board member of the Stuyvesant Cove Park Association, an advisory board member of the Village Trip, a coach, an entrepreneur, a writer, a husband, and a father. In these roles, Kevin has led multiple initiatives to increase the quality of life in East Midtown. In 2019, he led a major advocacy campaign to reopen an East Midtown garden and lawn after decades of closure. Since then, thousands of individuals have enjoyed their time inside the now-public green space. As a member of Manhattan Community Board 6, Kevin led an initiative for members of the public to make presentations to the board to better understand community needs. In this capacity, he also serves as a committee chair and member of the Youth and Education Committee and Health and Human Services Committee. Furthermore, Kevin's commitment extends to youth sports and education. He is a former all-American athlete who volunteers as a sports coach, heading the track and field program at a local East Midtown school and running ``Swish You Were Here,'' a community basketball net-replacement initiative. Kevin is also an entrepreneur and accomplished writer. He is the author of the nonfiction bestseller The Average American, which follows O'Keefe's journey to find the nation's most statistically average person. The book has inspired many people to find a middle ground when talking with those with differing views and has earned accolades from former President Barack Obama. In his professional life, he has led New York Sports Tours and other prominent brands and companies. On April 25, 2023, Kevin was honored at the Samuel J. Tilden Democratic Club's 70th anniversary gala with the Platinum Anniversary Award for Distinguished Service. Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect and admiration that we recognize Kevin O'Keefe for his outstanding service and leadership. His dedication not only enhances the vibrancy of East Midtown but also sets a commendable example of civic engagement and community spirit. We are grateful for his contributions and proud to count him as a distinguished member of our community.

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this foolhardy attempt to pass for a second time one of the most draconian immigration bills this Congress has ever seen. This rehashing of H.R. 2 is a joke. They say that the definition of insanity is trying something over and over but expecting different results. Yet here we are, debating a bill once again that continues to have no chance of being enacted into law. We know that because H.R. 2 has been brought up and failed twice in the Senate, most recently garnering a mere 32 votes. This is nothing more than pure political theater. I truly don't know what it is that the Speaker wants us to suspend: The rules of the House or our disbelief. My Republican colleagues continue to show us that they are not interested in finding real solutions to tough issues. Let's be very clear about what this legislation would do. This bill serves as a wholesale ban on asylum and the end of parole. No one would be able to seek asylum in the United States if they cross between ports of entry or if they had, or could have had, even temporary status in a third country. The last time we considered this bill, Democrats offered a variety of amendments to exempt the most vulnerable from some of these requirements. This included those fleeing Communist and totalitarian regimes and unaccompanied children. The majority was not willing to exempt children under a year old. When it comes to parole, Republicans were not willing to support codifying the vital Uniting for Ukraine parole program, which has aided over 100,000 Ukrainians fleeing Putin's unlawful invasion of Ukraine. This is not serious legislation. Given their slim margins, it is unclear that Republicans could even pass H.R. 2 in its entirety today. As such, the majority had to make some tweaks to the bill to try to convince any Republican holdouts that their marquee bill is a good idea. For example, this version removes H.R. 2's nationwide E-Verify mandate. If passed into law, this would have decimated our economy, especially our agriculture sector. Some Republicans previously voted ``no'' because of this provision, but removing this title appears to be doing little for the bill's prospects. Other Republicans, including the chairman of the Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement Subcommittee, support this provision and have expressed concern over its removal. This whole exercise is a huge waste of our time. Not only does this bill not have the votes in the Senate, it probably does not even have the votes to pass the House today. In what appears to be an effort to gain the support of Mr. Roy, an early opponent of the Speaker's approach to the foreign aid package, the E-Verify section was replaced with a new grant program to reimburse States for enforcing immigration law. This is intended to reimburse the State of Texas for the money Governor Greg Abbott has spent defying our Federal system with Operation Lone Star, even though numerous components of this operation have been ruled unlawful by the courts. If the hope was that this provision would earn the support of Mr. Roy, it seems to have failed, since we are only considering this bill under suspension because he and others wouldn't even support moving this bill out of the Rules Committee. Not only is this not serious legislation, this is not a serious process. Let's remember how we got here. After passing H.R. 2 in May of last year, Republicans spent the next 7 months saying that H.R. 2 was the only way to secure the border, even though they know that it cannot become law, having been so overwhelmingly rejected by the Senate. Then they insisted that the price of helping protect Ukraine against Russian aggression was enacting harsh border enforcement legislation. Senate Republicans even managed to convince some Democrats to agree to a 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 help at the border in an election year because he wants immigration as a campaign issue. Other Republicans said it out loud, too, saying they don't want to do too damn much to help a Democrat. Folding to the cult of Donald Trump, and just hours after the 370- page text of that bill was released, 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 help address our broken immigration system. They just want to talk tough, without doing the hard work of actually legislating. Now, this version of H.R. 2 is being sent to the floor to give Republicans cover to vote for necessary aid for our allies Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. If this political theater and show vote of this bill is what they need to pass vital aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, then fine, but let's not pretend we are accomplishing anything here today. This is a waste of our time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington.

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

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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy in this Chamber is so thick, you could cut it with a knife. Mr. Scalise says H.R. 2 was sent to the Senate, and the Senate ignores the issue. The Senate didn't ignore the issue. The Senate negotiated, as was mentioned before, a very, very tough immigration bill--the toughest ever negotiated--by Senator Lankford, whose reputation is the second-most conservative Republican in the Senate. It didn't pass. Why? Because former President Trump said: Don't pass anything. Don't pass H.R. 2. Don't pass the Senate bill. I want an issue. I don't want this issue solved. I don't want a solution. I want an issue for the campaign. That is what the President said. Congressman Nehls got up and said the same thing. He said: Why should we give a win to a Democrat? So don't tell me that anyone is serious about H.R. 2. They are not. H.R. 2 is so draconian, the Senate would not give it more than 32 votes. We know that. We know that H.R. 2 is a fiction in the Senate. We know that the Senate negotiated a very strong bill, but that bill could not advance because former President Trump said he didn't want it. He doesn't want anything to pass on this subject. So don't tell me that the Republicans want a strong immigration bill and that the Democrats want open borders. Nobody wants open borders. Mr. Speaker, there is something else. The Republicans rightly decry the catch-and-release policy, where someone claims asylum and is then released into the country for years until a trial date comes up to decide whether that asylum claim is valid and should be granted or whether the person should be deported. That really is intolerable, but President Biden proposed a solution. The solution is very simple. He proposed an appropriation--I forget the amount--but an appropriation that would be sufficient so that those trials would be held in a matter of weeks, not years. If someone claimed asylum, he has a right to claim it. He has a right to an adjudication. The adjudication would take place in several weeks. If the person's case was valid, asylum would be granted. If the person's claim was not granted, he would be swiftly deported. You wouldn't have what they call this invasion. It is not an invasion. This country is composed of people who came through immigration. In the 1900s, there were 10,000 a day. They created the current United States, probably the ancestors of most of the people in this country. Immigrants are not a curse. They are a blessing. We need them for our economy, but we need a legal system. The legal system can only occur if the adjudications can occur quickly. The President proposed the means of doing that, and the Republicans rejected that. They rejected that. They rejected the tough bill in the Senate because President Trump said: I don't want a solution. I want an issue for the campaign. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing. If House Republicans were serious about addressing the situation at the border, they would work with Democrats on bipartisan legislation that could actually become law, as they did in the Senate. Time and again, Republicans have proven that they want the issue more than they want solutions. Here we are again taking up virtually the same draconian bill as before, knowing that if it actually passes the House, it will surely go nowhere in the Senate. In a Congress that has broken records for its chaos, dysfunction, and lack of accomplishments, this debate is one more for the record books. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this cruel and inhumane bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).