Protect Our Law Enforcement with Immigration Control and Enforcement Act of 2023

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let's be clear: Assaulting a law enforcement officer is a serious offense and cannot be tolerated in the United States. It is also largely already a deportable offense.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. If this bill, the so-called Protect Our Law Enforcement with Immigration Control and Enforcement Act, or the POLICE Act of 2023, closed an actual gap in current law and made our country safer, Democrats would gladly support it.

Unfortunately, this bill represents another unserious attempt by my Republican colleagues to target and scapegoat immigrants and to score cheap, political points for National Police Week while doing nothing to actually protect law enforcement officers.

It is important to remember who this legislation is targeting. This is not about undocumented immigrants who are, of course, already removable, and this is not about people who are seeking to enter the United States. This is about people who have come here the so-called ``right way.'' We are talking about lawful, permanent residents.

People have put down roots in our communities, many of whom have U.S. citizen spouses and children and have truly established themselves here in the United States. Many of these individuals are eligible to become U.S. citizens today, but this bill would make them deportable without even requiring that they be convicted of a crime, only that the assault or act constituting the assault was committed and that the individual admits to the commission of the act.

That throws our whole notion of due process on its head. That is why it is absolutely critical that we adopt Mr. Correa's amendment to close this dangerous loophole. Even if we require a conviction, I am still concerned that the bill is so broad and overinclusive that it could lead to truly absurd results and to the deportation of people who had no intention of ever harming a law enforcement officer.

Let me give you three examples of what this bill would do, as drafted:

A person walks into a fire, sees a beam about to fall on a firefighter, and pushes the firefighter out of the way. He has committed an act that is an assault on the firefighter who is a peace officer, and he is deportable.

A person sees two men fighting on the street and he breaks them up. He pushes them aside, not knowing that one of them is an undercover police officer. He has assaulted the police officer.

A Jehovah's Witness is in an ambulance. The EMT reaches over to put a line in to give him a transfusion. The Jehovah's Witness pushes his hand away. He has committed assault on the EMT who is a peace officer and he is, therefore, deportable.

Now, Republicans will say that these are far-fetched, absurd examples. The problem is that under the terms of the bill, this would happen. However far-fetched you may think the example, you have to read the bill.

Mr. Correa's amendment would correct this. If Mr. Correa's amendment passes, we can support the bill. If it does not, this is a dangerous bill making lawful permanent residents who have been here for many years deportable for no good reasons.

For years, we have had a bipartisan understanding that individuals should be deported only for a serious offense, but this bill breaks down that understanding. I hope we will fix the bill's most significant flaw through the amendment process, namely, the Correa amendment. If not, I must recommend that my colleagues oppose this legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, the gentleman from New York referenced our District Attorney Alvin Bragg. As a resident of Manhattan, I must say that I find Alvin Bragg a perfectly fine district attorney, and he is being attacked only because he has secured indictments on 34 counts against Donald Trump, and that is why they are holding him up for criticism.

I am very glad that I supported him in the Democratic primary against a number of opponents 2 years ago, and he is doing a fine job, including the 34 indictments he secured against former President Trump, who it appears is also going to be indicted in Washington and in Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member, and I thank the manager on the other side for their work.

This is National Police Week. I started my week in joining a family from Houston whose husband and father had fallen as a police officer in the line of duty, but it was also with the throngs of men and women of law enforcement across America and families at the 42nd Annual National Memory Day for law enforcement officers.

I spent quite a bit of time there, interacting with officers that were not only from Texas or Houston. I respect the service that they have given as we, as Members of Congress and Democrats and my friends on the other side of the aisle, should do.

And as we interacted, the response was an appreciation, as I expressed, an appreciation for their service.

We have done a number of bills on the floor, and I am glad that we had one that honored that day. I proudly managed that bill, as well as a number of others that were on previously.

There are a number of bills that have been on the floor or are on the floor today, at least two. Before I speak of the underlying bill, let me acknowledge my support for H.R. 3091, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act, which has previously been debated. I would say that this deals with Federal law enforcement officers in good standing.

It is a smart way to deal with guns that have been retired. That will allow--rather than creating dust in the GSA, and as well, who knows, them falling in the wrong hands for whatever reason, you might say-- rather than destroying those guns, it would allow Federal agencies to sell the handguns used in the performance of their duties to Federal law enforcement officers in good standing, promoting public safety, reducing waste, and recouping taxpayer dollars.

This is good legislation. I hope as it makes its way that they will add some form of a check--which all officers believe in background checks. Maybe they will take those resources and invest in bringing down gun violence, which we know, as of this week, two law enforcement officers were injured in New Mexico, as a young, underage teenager had an AR-15 and killed three innocent civilians.

Mr. Chair, it would be nice if the legislation would use those resources to help bring down gun violence. H.R. 3091 is a good bill, and I intend to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3091, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act (in its current form).

When a federal agency has property it no longer needs, such as firearms, the property is declared excess and is reported to GSA to be screened for possible transfer to other Federal agencies with a need for such property.

If no other agencies request the excess property, it is declared surplus--and in the case of firearms, required to be destroyed.

Rather than destroying retired, surplus handguns, H.R. 3091 would allow federal agencies to sell the handguns used in the performance of their duties to federal law enforcement officers in good standing-- promoting public safety, reducing waste, and recouping taxpayer funds.

Although I support this legislation, I should point out that the previous version--introduced last Congress by my Democratic colleague-- included a requirement that any law enforcement officer making a purchase must pass a background check as part of the transfer. But this version does not.

The previous version also wisely advised via a sense of Congress that proceeds from the sale of these handguns should be used to fund evidence-based gun violence prevention or gun safety programs.

While we might assume that no problems could arise in the sale of a handgun to an officer in good standing, a background check or records check of some kind would ensure that vital information about that officer has not been missed, overlooked, or fallen through a gap in reporting.

That is why I support the Jacobs' amendment that would further define the good standing requirement--ensuring that only responsible, law- abiding officers can purchase these firearms.

However, because we too must be responsible, especially when it comes to setting policy for buying, selling, and trading firearms, I cannot support this bill if the Republican poison pills are adopted.

This trio of amendments would destroy each of the foundational purposes of the bill that brought Republican and Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee together during the markup of this bill-- promoting public safety, reducing waste, and recouping taxpayer funds.

Together, these amendments would allow, not just handguns but military-grade weapons that have no business in civilian homes and communities, to be provided at little to no cost, to retired officers, without any means to determine their suitably for taking possession of these weapons.

I am disappointed that we could lose the opportunity to pass this thoughtful legislation during National Police Week by attaching these reckless amendments.

That is why I implore my colleagues to vote No to the Luttrell, McCormick, and Rosendale amendments.

And I encourage members on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 3091 and the Jacobs Amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, we are now at a time when we are talking about H.R. 2494. I would say that when interacting with law enforcement officers, I have never heard one person raise this. I don't think we can condemn prosecutors across America that they are not willing to stand up and be counted when any assault occurs against an officer.

Any such legitimate assault should be both an arrest and prosecution. That is not what we are saying. If it happens to be an LPR or green card holder or whatever status the person has--arrested and prosecuted.

What we are saying is desperate people come to this country and they work hard to get a status, and if it is legitimate, they wind up in jail. That is where they can be. H.R. 2494 ignores that.

One, it is not one that you have heard any officers asking for. Two, that person can be convicted and wind up in jail. I know there is an amendment to say if they are convicted that would be the case. Ordinarily, they would be able to serve their time. I don't think that we should use this hammer to tear families apart.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, this bill has been ill-drafted in harmful measure and does not seek to address a need that people are crying for.

The bill insults prosecutors across America. You can't label them all. In essence, it insults law enforcement officers, who themselves know that somebody who is in distress might respond accordingly. It insults the long time it takes to become a citizen of the United States, and some of these individuals have been waiting and waiting and maybe had an unfortunate circumstance. We are talking about some of the incidents that Ranking Member Nadler cited. It is just unruly.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to consider thoughtfully that we are doing good in a bipartisan way. Let us continue to do that. Police like to see that. They like to see themselves being affirmed in a bipartisan manner. They don't like to see other people being scapegoats.

Mr. Chair, we want them to be safe. We don't want violence. We don't want them to be injured. That is the statement we all should make. Let's find laws that will ensure that that will not happen.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2494, the Protect Our Law Enforcement with Immigration Control and Enforcement (POLICE) Act.

This bill is an incredibly ill drafted and harmful measure that does not seek to address illegal immigration or support for law enforcement--rather it creates punitive deportation penalties to remove individuals who are lawfully here--cruelly scaling back on legal immigration pathways rather than increasing them.

This bill is a solution in search of a problem--essentially seeking to expand the scope of people who can be deported.

It is so broadly drafted that people who pose no real danger to law enforcement could be subject to deportation.

Let's be clear, this is not about undocumented immigrants who are already removable. This is about people who have come lawfully and been admitted to the United States.

We are talking about lawful permanent residents. People who have set down roots and established themselves here in the United States.

Given that my Republican colleagues have been unwilling to add a conviction requirement or a requirement that the offense included the intention to cause harm or use violence, I had hoped they would have been willing to accept an amendment that allows an immigration judge or Department of Homeland Security adjudicator to look at variety of mitigating factors when assessing if someone should be deemed deportable.

During the Judiciary Committee markup and the Rules Committee hearing, offered in the Rules Committee would have allowed for mitigating factors to be taken into account before someone is deported as a result of an assault on a law enforcement officer.

However, my Democratic colleagues and I could not get any Republican to roll back their punitive and damaging intent to harm any and all individuals seeking refuge and citizenship here in the U.S.--no matter the vulnerability of their circumstances.

As has already been discussed, this bill is attempting to add a new avenue to deport people with green cards.

If we are going to deport these people, it should be for a serious offense and there needs to be serious consideration of the circumstances pertaining to the alleged offense.

People who are convicted of serious assaults on law enforcement officers are already deportable.

Under current immigration law, if an individual is convicted of a crime of violence and sentenced to a year or more in prison, that is an aggravated felony and that person is deportable.

The same is true for someone who is convicted of a ``crime involving moral turpitude,'' where the crime is punishable by imprisonment of one year or more.

Both of these deportability grounds are currently invoked when there is a conviction for a serious, intentional assault on a law enforcement officer, where bodily injury occurs or is intended.

This amendment would have allow the official making the final determination on deportation the ability to examine additional mitigating factors as evidence weighing against deportation.

The official would be able to take into account:

if there was intent to harm;

the severity of offense;

if the act resulted in harm;

the individual's military service (if any);

how long the individual has been in the United States; and

the individual's ties to the community.

These factors are vitally important for an immigration judge or other adjudicator to consider in order to ensure that we do not end up with some of the absurd results which have already been outlined today by my colleagues.

We should not be deporting long-term green card holders for minor offenses. Just as a reminder, these examples include:

A green card holder in a fire who pushes a firefighter out of the way of a falling beam. This person would have committed assault and become deportable.

Likewise, if a foreign student whose religion prohibits blood transfusions is receiving medical care from an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) and she swats the EMT's hand away because she is trying to give him a blood transfusion, that student will have committed assault on a law enforcement officer and become deportable under this bill.

As another example, if a green card holder sees a fight on the street and attempts to intervene by getting between the individuals and pushing them apart. If one of the individuals was an undercover police officer performing his duties, the individual would have committed assault under this bill and become deportable.

In all of these examples, one would hope the individuals would never be charged, let alone convicted of a crime.

However, even without a conviction or intent to harm requirement, by admitting to actions that constitute assault, any of those individuals would have admitted to intentionally assaulting a law enforcement officer and would become deportable under this bill.

We should not be deporting green card holders for such minor offenses.

If the majority insists on doing so, they should at least allow adjudicators to look at mitigating factors to ensure that we are preventing good members of our society from getting swept up in this overbroad bill.

Let me just say that it is truly unfortunate that the Rules Committee did not consider my amendment or that of my colleagues.

We need to stop putting forth harmful and unproductive legislation and work on passing legislation that truly addresses meaningful immigration reform.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Casar).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, this bill would make someone deportable if they assault a law enforcement officer, a fact that is already largely the case, as it should be. This bill would make it a deportable offense for a legal, permanent resident to merely perform the acts that could be described as a felony.

That, as I said before, leads to absurd results. The gentleman may say that that is not the intended result and that wouldn't happen, but you have to read the statute as it reads.

These absurd results that I mentioned before--I am not going to repeat them now--would be real unless the Correa amendment is adopted. Then it would solve the infirmities of the bill and we could recommend passage. If that doesn't happen, we cannot.

Mr. Chair, I hope we will fix this bill's most glaring flaw by requiring that a person actually be convicted of assault before they are rendered deportable--that is the Correa amendment. If not, I urge all Members to oppose this legislation.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the Boebert amendment requires the Department of Homeland Security to make publicly available on its website an annual report on the number of noncitizens deported for assaulting a law enforcement officer.

It is important for us to take a step back and remember what this bill is all about. This bill is attempting to add a new avenue for people who are living here lawfully in the United States to be deported.

By and large, we are talking about the ability to deport lawful permanent residents, people with green cards. These are people who my Republican colleagues like to say have done things the so-called ``right way.'' I sincerely hope that this report would not be used to further demonize immigrants.

However, on its face, I do not find this amendment to be objectionable.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Correa's amendment.

Any conviction requirement would greatly improve this bill. No one in this caucus condones serious assaults against law enforcement officers. As written, however, this bill goes well beyond serious offenses to include minor offenses and even actions for which an individual is never charged or convicted.

That is right. Under this bill, a conviction is not required. This will lead to bizarre consequences in which someone who had no intent of harming a law enforcement officer but nevertheless committed an act that constituted assault would be deemed deportable.

Mr. Chairman, remember the three examples I gave before: pushing a fireman out of the way of a falling beam. That would make the person deportable under this bill.

It is important to remember that convictions for serious assaults on law enforcement are already offenses that make someone deportable under current law. In fact, we have a wide variety of criminal grounds for deportation, nearly all of which require a conviction. That is why adding a requirement that an individual be convicted of assaulting a law enforcement officer to become deportable would significantly improve the bill.

However, it would not fix all the issues associated with this bill. For example, the bill does not require an intent to cause harm or any physical injury which would sweep in very low-level offenses.

Since the bill only impacts people who are here legally, the prospect of deporting longtime members of our communities for very minor offenses is deeply concerning, but the bill would be improved by this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source