End the Border Catastrophe Act

Floor Speech

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Jayapal), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement.

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.

Jackson Lee).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thought we would come here today and have a reasoned opportunity to address this question.

Let me be very clear. I have been in this body long enough to say that we have had a time where Members have been here and we have had control of the border, in the interpretation that my Republicans might say. We have had a flow of immigrants. We have had processes, and we have had challenges. We have spoken to the issue of providing funding for these challenges.

Here is what the issue is. The issue is that we have a past President who sees in his jurisdiction and career to block the flow of immigrants who are building and continuing to work with us in working on this Nation.

They come from Ukraine. They may come from Israel. They may come from Palestine. They may come from Taiwan.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, those individuals need processes and they need funding. We won't even give them war funding.

As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I can tell you that the issue is that we are not bringing groups together who are fleeing persecution, which is what we are seeing in the individuals coming to the country now. They are fleeing persecution, and we want to reject-- we want to reject the funding.

When I was on the Homeland Security Committee, we did not do that. We provided for the NGOs. It is shameful for us to think that we can live in this country and reject the NGOs, the nongovernmental entities, who are helping those who are in need.

That is how we did our work. When we did our work, we would be able to solve the problems. Those problems would be helping NGOs. Those problems would be making sure that we gave dollars to the agencies like Catholic Charities. Can anyone believe that we don't give money to Catholic Charities anymore?

The call that we have today, Mr. Speaker, and to my good friend, the whip of the House, working with our whip, the Honorable Katherine Clark----

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source