Police Our Border Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source