Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this cruel, unworkable and inhumane modified version of the Republican border bill H.R. 2. What is the point of this exercise? The majority could barely pass this legislation last year over bipartisan opposition, and now it is going to magically pass it in the House with a two-thirds majority. Give me a break. That is not what is happening here.

They say when someone shows you who they are, you should believe them the first time. Well, the majority has shown us who they are on this issue over and over and over again. They consistently reject bipartisan solutions, including a bill that was drafted in the Senate by the second most conservative Republican Senator. Yet, the majority and Republicans in the House and the Senate decided to kill that bill.

You know why? Because Donald Trump said kill the bill because we want to keep immigration out there as an issue that doesn't get solved, doesn't have any solutions, but has some empty talking point messaging bills that continue to demonize immigrants and create xenophobia in a country that has depended on immigrants to build this country and continues to.

Republicans have said it out loud over and over again. They don't want solutions. They don't want to solve problems. They just want to preserve the issue for the election. This bill is going nowhere. Let's just be clear about that. The situation at the border is directly linked to the fact that the legal immigration system has been left in chaos because it has not been modernized in 30 years to meet the needs of this country.

Who has stopped that modernization? Republicans have stopped it over and over again; when the legal process is so backed up that it takes decades for legal residents to get their children into the country, when employers can't simply get the workers that they need to hire approved because there is a backlog of 2 million people who haven't been processed or when we have so few immigration judges that asylum seekers wait for over 8 years to get their cases heard.

Mr. Speaker, when asylum seekers wait 8 years to get their cases heard, then, yes, people turn to unscrupulous actors, including cartels, who promise them get in by going to the border. The only people talking about the open border and encouraging people to come across the border are Republicans who continue to put that message out there.

Are we looking for solutions, Mr. Speaker? No, we are here debating a bill that has no chance of becoming law and is an empty messaging bill that does absolutely nothing to reform our outdated immigration system. Let's get back to governing.

Mr. Speaker, I missed Roll Call No. 116 on April 12, 2024. Had I been present, my vote would have been Nay.

Mr. Chair, I am proud to cosponsor this important bipartisan bill that protects Americans' constitutional privacy rights in this digital age by closing loopholes so that the government cannot purchase Americans' private data from data brokers without a warrant.

Last year, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declassified a report on how the intelligence community buys significant amounts of Americans' data from data brokers.

We are talking about very sensitive personal information that can cover anything from Americans' location data to internet activity.

That report noted that this data ``has increasingly important risks and implications for U.S. person privacy and civil liberties, as [the data] can reveal sensitive and intimate information about individuals.''

This isn't just some small group of people saying that we don't like this. It is actually the Office of the Director of National Intelligence saying that this practice of buying peoples' personal information without a warrant from these data brokers is dangerous, and it is a runaround of our constitutional protections.

Just last month, we banned foreign adversaries from buying this data. It is important that this body today protect Americans, protect our constitutional rights, and ban this practice. Vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. Chair, we have a critical opportunity today to stand up for the civil liberties that are enshrined in our Constitution while also safeguarding our national security.

Every single day, the FBI conducts an average of 500 warrantless searches of Americans' private communications, resulting in over 278,000 searches in 1 year alone. The FBI has invaded the privacy of Members of Congress, a State court judge who reported civil rights violations by a local police chief, Black Lives Matter protesters, and more.

We cannot pass this bill without additional protections, like my amendment with Representatives Biggs, Nadler, Jordan, Lofgren, and Davidson, to close the backdoor search loophole.

Unfortunately, there are some members of the intelligence community and some Members of this body who are circulating information that simply is not correct, and I need to correct the record right here. Some Members have implied that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board does not support the amendment.

To counter that, let me share some quotes from Sharon Bradford Franklin in her personal capacity as Chair of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the independent government agency tasked with ensuring the executive branch conducts national security work in a way that protects our civil liberties and privacy. She said:

It is critical that in reauthorizing section 702, Congress

includes a warrant requirement for U.S. person queries.

Requiring a warrant for U.S. person queries would neither

end U.S. person queries nor undermine the overall value of

section 702.

Outside of the category of ``victim queries,'' the FBI has

not been able to identify any cases in which a section 702

U.S. person query provided unique value in advancing a

criminal investigation. In addition, the government has been

unable to identify a single criminal prosecution that relied

on evidence identified through a U.S. person query.

The warrant requirement contained in the warrant amendment

includes important exceptions that would address the

government's concerns about slowing down the process for U.S.

person queries. Exceptions are provided for exigent

circumstances, consent, cybersecurity, and metadata-only

queries.

Mr. Chair, let me be clear that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, in its oversight capacity, has the same access to all the classified intelligence that the agencies cite when they try to scare us into reauthorizing FISA with minimal changes.

We have a bipartisan amendment that would fix this problem. We have a responsibility to stand up for civil liberties of our constituents. We cannot pass this bill without requiring intelligence agencies to ensure that Americans' privacy rights are upheld at every turn.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, and, yes, I agree with Chairman Jordan on an immigration amendment because this is an expansion of the government's ability to surveil. We have this opportunity right here in Congress today to add critical safeguards and not expand the government's use of this surveillance authority.

This inexcusable expansion of FISA will further increase warrantless surveillance, and it is at the expense of a whole slew of innocent immigrants.

People seeking to come to this country are not monolithic communities cut off from Americans. Many of them are close family members of U.S. citizens seeking reunification through family sponsorship or just a simple visit. Many others are sponsored by U.S. employers.

There is already ample vetting of immigrants. Just look at refugees, who are the most vetted group of people who come to this country. It takes years of vetting through multiple agencies, including the FBI, the National Counterterrorism Center, and other agencies.

This amendment is only going to make these processing backlogs worse. It will further delay American businesses from getting the workers we need to maintain our competitiveness and our ability to attract the best and the brightest. It could harm local economies that rely on tourism as delays in processing travel visas deter people from travel to America.

We should not be expanding FISA. We should be creating safeguards to protect foundational civil liberties rights.

Earlier, one of my colleagues claimed that not a single Federal court has identified a Fourth Amendment issue with U.S. person queries. Mr. Chair, that is false. In 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found Fourth Amendment concerns with U.S. person queries, and that issue is still being debated.

We are talking about an average of 500 warrantless searches of Americans' private communications every single day. Don't take it from me.

Here is a quote from Travis LeBlanc, a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board member:

Although section 702 is touted as a foreign intelligence

tool, it is apparent that a key feature is domestic

intelligence and criminal law enforcement. For example, DOJ

reported that the FBI queried over 19,000 donors to a

congressional campaign. The FBI also has run numerous

improper queries of social advocates, religious community

leaders, and even individuals who provide tips or who are

victims of crime. Five million warrantless searches by the

FBI of Americans' private communications is 5 million too

many.

Vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career and legacy of Washington State Representative Frank Chopp. Representative Chopp is leaving the Washington State Legislature after three decades of committed service to the people of the 43rd Legislative District. Representative Chopp's impressive tenure also included 20 years of service as the Washington State House Speaker. I am proud to have worked alongside Representative Chopp and witnessed his strength of character firsthand during my time as a Washington State Senator.

Many of the strides that the State of Washington has made in support of workers' right to organize, critical infrastructure development, access to housing, immigration, expanded healthcare, and educational equity can be attributed to Representative Chopp's exceptional public service. He has been a relentless champion for low-income and working people across our state, doggedly pursuing every single opportunity to provide more affordable housing and safety net services.

Thanks to Representative Chopp's career and many accomplishments, thousands of Washingtonians have access to opportunity and the pursuit of the American Dream. I am very grateful for his incredible service and confident that he will be a staunch advocate for working families as he returns to his roots as a community organizer. His leadership will serve as a model for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

For the second time in less than 2 months, with another shutdown looming, we are wasting our time on a meaningless immigration resolution full of empty rhetoric whose sole purpose seems to be to justify Republicans' lack of desire to address solutions for our broken immigration system.

How did we get here, Mr. Speaker? Earlier this Congress, House Republicans passed their cruel, inhumane, and unworkable border bill, H.R. 2. Republicans continue to say that H.R. 2 is the only way to secure the border, and they continue to say that Democrats have refused to bring H.R. 2 up in the Senate. In fact, that bill has since failed twice to pass the United States Senate, receiving just 32 votes a few weeks ago. That means there are a lot of Republicans over there in the Senate who didn't vote for H.R. 2.

After insisting that the only way to address the border was through harsh border security legislation and holding Ukraine aid hostage, Republicans even managed to get some Democrats to agree to a border bill in the Senate that was written largely by the Senate's second-most conservative Republican Senator, a bill that Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called the toughest border bill in 30 years.

What happened to that bill? Donald Trump said he didn't want to do anything to help the border in an election year because he wants immigration to be out there as a campaign issue. Other Republicans said it out loud as well, saying they didn'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 the bill was released, Speaker Johnson declared the bill ``dead on arrival'' in the House. The rank and file fell in line, and the Senate bill died before the metaphorical ink was even dry.

Republicans showed clearly what we Democrats have been saying over and over again, that they don't want to do anything that would help address the issues of a broken immigration system that we face. Instead of solving the problem, my colleagues on the other side want to continue to weaponize the border as a political issue for this election year.

The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that the situation at the border is directly linked to the fact that our legal immigration system has been left in chaos because it has not been modernized in 30 years to meet the needs of our country, our economy, and our families.

When the legal process is so backed up that it takes decades for legal residents to get their children into the country, when employers simply can't get people they need to hire approved because there is a backlog of 2 million people who haven't been processed, or when we have so few immigration judges that asylum seekers wait over 8 years to get their cases heard, then people give in to unscrupulous actors, including the cartels, which promise them that if they pay them a boatload of money, they can get them in by going to the border.

Until you fix the legal immigration system so that it works and update the caps and the quotas, you will continue to see large numbers of migrants at the border. You cannot fix the border without fixing the underlying system, and you certainly cannot fix it with only harsh immigration policy.

Speaker Johnson and others have been caught in their own trap. They refuse to give President Biden the resources that we need to process people more quickly. They voted against more money to secure the border with more technology and equipment that Border Patrol agents have told us that they need. They even voted against more money for more agents at the border.

To hide their hypocrisy, they are now claiming that the President can just ``secure the border'' through harsh executive actions alone, no action by Congress necessary.

Today's resolution is just another ham-fisted attempt to weaponize the issue at the border, and it is filled with misinformation.

The resolution alleges that the Biden administration is not removing people fast enough, yet in the 8 months since ending title 42, despite some of our due process concerns, this administration has removed or returned over half a million people, roughly equivalent to the number of people removed and returned by the Trump administration in all of fiscal year 2019.

The resolution states that the administration ``could comply with the mandatory detention statutes of the Immigration and Nationality Act,'' which no administration, including the Trump administration, has ever complied with because no Congress has ever appropriated the extraordinary levels of funding that such compliance would require.

The resolution complains that the President isn't using the suspension of entry authority in section 212(f) of the INA, but Republicans want to forget that President Trump tried to do exactly that in November 2018 and was stopped by the courts. Even the Supreme Court refused to intervene and lift the lower court injunction.

Enforcement-only policies do not stop people from crossing the border. In fact, when former President Trump implemented the remain in Mexico policy early in 2019, that summer, we saw some of the highest levels of migration of the entire Trump administration.

When President Trump used title 42 to turn back all border crossers, encounters between the ports of entry actually shot up, not down. Cartels made money hand over fist by providing people with multiple entry attempt packages.

One individual was apprehended over 40 times alone, just one individual. In fact, from February 1, 2017, to December 31, 2020, the duration of Donald Trump's Presidency, illegal border crossings went up by over 300 percent.

People do not make the arduous, dangerous journey here on a whim. They do it because they are often fleeing for their lives or are desperate to escape an unlivable situation in their home country. Because of that, they will continue to come, no matter how many draconian policies they may have to face once they arrive.

The way we can deal with that is to have a system that actually works inside the United States, legal pathways for people to come to this country. The way to fix the border is to modernize our current immigration system so that it works to provide people with different opportunities and abilities to apply to be with their families or come here to work or flee war or torture and have their applications and claims processed in a timely way.

We have already seen that when we provide workable ways for people to seek entry and refuge, they will use them, and encounters between ports of entry fall dramatically.

This resolution shows once again that Republicans don't want to do anything to fix the border. This is a resolution that literally does absolutely nothing, changes not one single policy that is on the books.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my colleagues that no President has ever been able to detain everybody that is required by law because we have never appropriated that amount of money.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, while you may not know it from some of the language being used today, we are debating an immigration resolution that is nonbinding.

That means it does absolutely nothing. It is full of empty rhetoric, but it makes no actual policy changes to address the outdated immigration system.

It does not a single thing other than take up time for debate on this floor when we should be working on making sure that our government doesn't shut down.

Rather than debating meaningless resolutions, we should be exploring how to meaningfully reform the broken immigration system to expand lawful immigration to the United States given the documented benefits that it brings.

In 2021 alone, DACA recipients paid $6.5 billion in taxes, refugees paid almost $28 billion in taxes, and TPS holders paid $2.2 billion in taxes. Likewise, in 2021, undocumented immigrants paid approximately $18.6 million in Federal income taxes and $12.2 billion in State and local taxes.

Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services released a study demonstrating that refugees and asylees generated $124 billion in fiscal benefits over 15 years. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan entity, recently released a report finding that recent immigrants who join the workforce will add $1 trillion in revenue to our country's GDP between 2023 and 2034, and $7 trillion overall to our

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Pete Carroll's contributions to the Seattle Seahawks and the people of Seattle during his 14-year tenure as head coach. Throughout his tenure, the Seahawks had a 137-89-1 regular season record, 10 playoff appearances and a Super Bowl XLVIII victory to conclude the unforgettable 2013 season.

Coach Carroll prioritized a positive team culture that he described as ``. . . trying to help people find their best, one person at a time.'' His exemplary leadership philosophy has been referenced and used to develop mindset training for Air Force cadets and for companies throughout Washington State. I would also like to commend Coach Carroll's service to the Pacific Northwest through his Amplify Voices initiative and philanthropic efforts.

Coach Carroll is the winningest coach in the history of the Seattle Seahawks and has made a significant impact in our community--both on and off the field--over the past 14 years. On behalf of Washington's 7th Congressional District, I would like to recognize Pete Carroll's work as head coach of the Seattle Seahawks and his many accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution to impeach Secretary Mayorkas.

This resolution is as ridiculous as it is dangerous. It has no evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. Are we really debating impeaching a Cabinet Secretary because House Republicans don't like the policies that he advances under a democratically elected President?

Far from alleging true high crimes and misdemeanors, this resolution relies on the same tired and untrue Republican talking points that Democrats have demonstrated for months are not true. With this Marjorie Taylor Greene sham impeachment resolution, the majority is bending to the will of the most extreme members of their Conference simply because they don't like the policies that Secretary Mayorkas is pursuing.

Secretary Mayorkas is an excellent and dedicated public servant, working tirelessly to protect our national security and to address a broken immigration system.

This Republican Congress, the least productive Congress in the history of the United States, having passed only 27 bills that have been signed into law, despite over 700 votes in this body, is simply trying to distract the American people from the fact that they are not doing a single thing to address the lives of ordinary Americans across this country.

I keep thinking that the House cannot debase itself further, Mr. Speaker, but it appears that we have not reached rock bottom yet. Vote ``no'' on this sham of an impeachment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Aneelah Afzali, who is stepping down after over seven years of service as the Executive Director of the American Muslim Empowerment Network of the Muslim Association of Puget Sound (MAPS-AMEN).

Aneelah founded MAPS-AMEN in December 2016 to combat rising islamophobia and empower the Pacific Northwest Muslim American community. I was proud to bring Aneelah as my guest to the 2017 State of the Union Address during my first year in Congress. Her story as a Muslim American woman of color is truly the American story. Aneelah's presence demonstrated to President Trump that he could not silence the patriotism and resolve of people in this country based on their race, religion or country of origin. Her continued organizing over the next seven years impacted the lives of thousands and exemplified her commitment to the realization of a just world.

Throughout her career, Aneelah's work with faith and non-faith communities has built bridges across religious, racial, cultural and political divides. Aneelah currently serves on a number of governing and advisory boards. Through this service, she emphasizes intersectionality and equity within the contexts of a wide array of issues such as gun violence prevention, racial justice, immigration reform and educational equity. She also continues to work with the Washington State Refugee Coordinator to welcome and resettle of Afghan refugees. She is a true community activist, interfaith leader, and civil rights advocate.

Aneelah's particular combination of brilliance, commitment to organizing and community, tenacity and strategic ability has been a true gift to our region and our people. She has inspired and celebrated the leadership of countless others, and of regular community members taking action and recognizing the power of their voices. Her integrity and values underlie everything, and she has never wavered from those no matter how challenging the situation. I have been continually inspired by Aneelah's work to combat hate and create a more equitable society.

As she continues her work to empower communities in new ways, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating Aneelah's many accomplishments and contributions to our country. On behalf of Washington's 7th Congressional District, I thank Aneelah for her partnership, service to the people of the Pacific Northwest and dedication to the fight for justice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6976.

Once again, the majority is wasting our time by putting forward a piece of legislation that has zero chance of becoming law and that is extraordinarily broad. No one condones driving under the influence. We should do everything we can to prevent people from getting behind the wheel while intoxicated, but this bill, designed to scapegoat and denigrate immigrants, will not solve the serious problem of DUIs.

Public safety threats, including those who have been convicted of serious DUI offenses, are already inadmissible and removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and this bill would not change or enhance that.

Under the INA, a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude where the punishment can be for a year or longer makes an individual deportable. Courts have ruled over and over again that serious DUI offenses that put others at risk are CIMTs and make the perpetrators deportable.

But this bill isn't about serious offenses, Mr. Speaker. Far from it.

The bill says that a conviction for a single DUI offense, misdemeanor, or felony makes you instantly deportable and an admission to such a offense makes you instantly inadmissible. No questions asked.

I can understand, maybe, the appeal of something that sounds like a zero-tolerance policy, but let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, if we had that kind of policy here in the House of Representatives, there would be several Members that would not be Members of this Chamber.

Moreover, by including every single type of DUI offense, this bill would make someone deportable for not driving under the influence. That is because States have a wide variety of opinions on what is a DUI. For example, Arizona's DUI statute allows people to be charged with a DUI if they are intoxicated and have ``physical control'' of their vehicle.

The Ninth Circuit found that the breadth of this statute means--and I am quoting here, ``One may be convicted under it for sitting in one's own car in one's own driveway with the key in the ignition and a bottle of beer in one's hand.''

Because of this, the Ninth Circuit determined that a conviction under this statute was insufficient to count as a deportable offense. As the court put it, ``Drunken driving is despicable. Having physical control of a car while drinking is not''--their words, not mine.

As many places across the country experience cold spells in the last week or so, there are States that would allow prosecution of someone simply if they were sitting in their car with the heat on while inebriated even if it was in their own driveway.

Current law allows judges to use their discretion to look at the broader facts of the case. This bill would strip that discretion away from them and would mandate that even someone whose only crime was sitting in a parked car while inebriated must be deported.

Let's not forget that deportability grounds, like the one that this bill would create, impact immigrants who are here lawfully, those who my colleagues always like to say, ``came the right way.''

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I am one of those. I came here to this country at 16 years old. It took me 17 years to get my citizenship, and here I am as a proud Member of the United States House of Representatives.

Are we really saying that we think the best use of our very limited Federal Government resources is to work on deporting a green card holder who decided to sleep in their car rather than drive home drunk from a bar? A green card holder not trying to drive drunk, just trying to stay warm? I certainly don't think that is a good use of our resources. It is certainly not a good use of our time on this floor.

But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made it clear that they are not interested in sensible solutions, just in sensationalism. This bill is another example of that.

Also, I hope my colleagues will stop referring to people as illegals. People are human beings. They have different statuses. Some are undocumented. If you want to say some are illegal, but let's not call human beings illegal. I am tired of that language.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6678. Instead of putting forward real solutions to fix the immigration system, my Republican colleagues are once again looking for a way to scapegoat and fearmonger about immigrants.

We have had no hearing or testimony in the Judiciary Committee this Congress where Social Security fraud amongst immigrants has been identified as a problem that even needs fixing. What we did hear instead was about how immigrants are engines of growth for this country and how they often pay billions into Social Security, even though they are not eligible for benefits from the program. We discussed how in 2019 alone, undocumented Mexican workers contributed $14.5 billion to Social Security and Medicare through the taxes taken out of their paychecks.

Despite these facts, my Republican colleagues have put forth a bill that is a dangerous solution in search of a problem. Under current law, Social Security fraud already makes a person deportable, but we require a conviction. This bill sets a dangerous precedent by allowing a person to be deported with absolutely no due process whatsoever.

Let me start by going through how this bill is not needed. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, one of the many ways that someone can become deportable is if they are convicted of something called a crime involving moral turpitude for which a sentence of 1 year or longer may be imposed. The Social Security-related offenses in this bill carry maximum penalties between 1 and 30 years, which clearly meet the 1-year minimum required for deportability.

Likewise, the offense of falsely making, forging, counterfeiting, or altering a document that can be used as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States is specifically defined as aggravated felony if the crime carries a sentence of 1 year or more. Conviction for an aggravated felony makes a person deportable. None of these facts seem to matter to the authors of this bill, my Republican colleagues.

H.R. 6678, however, sets a very difficult and dangerous precedent by eliminating the requirement that we first charge and convict a person for Social Security fraud before deporting them. This is not consistent with current immigration law, and most importantly, it violates the bedrock principles of fairness, due process, and the rule of law.

Now, my Republican colleagues seem to say that they don't care about due process for all people, but we do.

By not requiring a conviction, H.R. 6678 would vastly expand the ways in which a green card holder could become deportable, and it would lead to serious unintended consequences. With minor exceptions, the criminal grounds for deportation under the INA require a conviction to make a noncitizen deportable. That is just basic fairness.

Can you imagine a world in which you can simply be ejected from the country that you have lived in for decades without ever being convicted of a crime or separated from your family without ever being charged? That is not who we are as a country.

Due process needs to apply to everyone. We are better than this.

I hope my Republican colleagues will realize how absurd and shortsighted this bill is and will instead get to work with us on finding real solutions to fix our immigration system instead of constantly targeting immigrants through xenophobia, racism, and fear.

I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on H.R. 6678.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5585.

Once again, the majority is moving a bill that is a solution in search of a problem. H.R. 5585 adds duplicative and unnecessary immigration consequences. It amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to create a new ground of deportability and inadmissibility for any noncitizen who admits fleeing from Border Patrol while operating a motor vehicle.

Sound interesting?

Well, however, right now, being convicted of fleeing Border Patrol or any law enforcement already makes a person deportable and inadmissible. The key word here, though, is ``convicted.''

Most existing law requires a conviction before a person can be deported for a wide variety of crimes. By not requiring a conviction, this bill makes it easier to deport someone for fleeing Border Patrol than for more serious crimes, like murder.

Let's remember that when we talk about deportation, we are also talking about people who are here lawfully. Many of them are green card holders, and they have lived in the United States for decades. If we are going to deport them, we need to require a conviction and provide for basic due process and a day in court.

Further, the new criminal penalties in this bill are largely already covered in another statute, which makes it a crime for individuals to flee or evade a Border Patrol checkpoint. We don't need another criminal statute with another mandatory minimum sentence on top of current law.

Instead, what has long been needed is policy reforms. After an increase in fatalities of those being pursued during high-speed chases in 2021, CBP undertook a review of its vehicle pursuit policy. In 2023, after this detailed review, CBP overhauled the vehicle pursuit policy, adopting an ``objective reasonableness'' standard that is consistent with most law enforcement agencies across the United States. That was an important reform, and one that I am hopeful will better protect the safety of agents and the public.

What we should be doing in this body is pursuing and strengthening commonsense solutions like this. We don't need to waste time passing a bill that makes someone deportable for fleeing law enforcement, that is already a deportable offense. We certainly don't need a bill that would make someone deportable without even having a conviction.

This legislation is not needed. It is overly punitive. We have already wasted a lot of time on this floor because the other side couldn't get their act together to get the votes to pass the rule through. Let's just be clear. This is another waste of time, and it is deeply detrimental. It burdens border communities that are already often fearful of Border Patrol and the impact that it has on their daily lives.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this unnecessary, unneeded, and harmful legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and contributions of Mr. Wier Harman who sadly passed away on December 11, 2023, at age 57. Wier leaves behind a legacy as a champion of arts, culture and civic engagement in Seattle, Washington.

Wier grew up in Virginia, attended the University of Pennsylvania and studied directing at the Yale School of Drama. In the early 1990s, he directed plays and was the marketing manager at Seattle's Annex Theatre. He left Seattle for jobs in Atlanta and New York before returning to serve as Executive Director of Town Hall Seattle for 17 years. In 2015, Seattle Metropolitan Magazine named him one of ``15 People Who Should Really Run Seattle.''

Wier will live on through his contributions to Seattle and the Pacific Northwest. His passion was evident in his love for community, commitment to arts and culture, and tireless efforts to shape Town Hall Seattle into an inclusive and welcoming space for everyone in the region. Wier's enthusiasm and dedication to providing a platform for the people of Seattle to come together and forge a deeper understanding of one another garnered the trust and admiration of so many of us who experienced his work at Town Hall. Not only did he expand the landmark Town Hall's event offerings to include civics, arts, music, and sciences, but he also insisted on keeping ticket prices affordable and making attendance free for many young people.

Wier positioned Town Hall at the intersection of so many different communities and conversations. He was a connector--Wier seemed to know everyone, and everyone seemed to know Wier--and he used this capital to encourage new bonds and friendships to the benefit of our entire region. Wier was an advocate for young artists and cross-disciplinary collaboration. He championed civic participation, bold ideas, conversation and debate, empathy, kindness and generosity.

Wier's dedication to a robust civic life and his support of arts and culture will serve as a model for years to come. As he put it in describing Town Hall's essential work: ``Our role is simple and profound--to remind us that some things must be experienced together, and that `coming together' is often its own reward.'' His enduring spirit will live on in his wife, Barbara Sauermann, his children Stella and Ruby, and all of us who admired him so greatly in his community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Washington Huskies' remarkable 2023 football season. The Huskies reached the College Football Playoff, secured the greatest number of wins in the football program's history, and won the Pac-12 Championship. Under the leadership of head coach Kalen DeBoer, the Huskies put a well-deserved national spotlight on the university's football program and concluded the regular season with a perfect 13-0 record.

The University of Washington continues to bring immense pride to Seattle and Washington State. It is a leader in both academic and athletic excellence in the Pacific Northwest and the United States. I would like to commemorate the amazing work of the coaching staff and the student-athletes as they prepare for another excellent season. Congratulations on a phenomenal season and go Dawgs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 957.

Today, the Republican majority has brought up a pointless resolution that does nothing to address the situation at the border and repeats the same tired and untrue talking points about the border.

I, too, want to be clear: The border is not open. No matter how many times the Republicans repeat it, it doesn't make it true. Every time Republicans go on television with these false claims, the only people that are being empowered by those false claims are the cartels who use those false claims to then entice families to come to the border believing that it is open.

The fact is that Republicans have not had any interest in doing anything to fix the border because they want to keep chaos at the border until the election. They want to use immigrants as a political tool to ramp up fear and xenophobia in the run-up to the election.

Don't just take it from me, Mr. Speaker. Take it from my Republican colleagues themselves. On the issue of immigration, Representative Nehls said: ``I'm not willing to do too damn much right now to help a Democrat and to help Joe Biden's approval rating.''

On the issue of holding Ukraine aid hostage for unworkable border policies, Representative Crenshaw said: ``Some might even be afraid of giving up the border as a campaign issue. They don't want a solution.'' That is from Republicans, not from Democrats.

That is the truth. There are real changes that are needed to immigration policies that haven't been updated in 30 years. Some even have bipartisan support, but none of them have moved because Republicans don't really want a solution to this. That is why time and time again when Republicans had a chance to support more resources and personnel for the border, they voted ``no.''

In 2021 and 2023, nearly every current House Republican voted against providing additional funding to increase staffing and resources at ports of entry to combat smuggling of people and drugs.

When my colleague from Arizona says that everyone is coming to the border, he is not wrong in that we have taken away all of the legal pathways for people to actually be able to come here and the only one that seems to be remaining open is now the border.

When he says that agents aren't out there, it is because they are processing; then you should want to fund agents to be able to process so that we can have border agents that are out in the field doing the work that they need.

The President's supplemental funding request for the border actually does include more money for immigration judges and asylum officers that would help process people in a legal and orderly fashion. It has money for cities to be able to help people work and support themselves as they wait for their immigration papers to be processed.

Furthermore, we could pass the American Dream and Promise Act and

the Farm Worker Modernization Act, which are both bipartisan, to help bring real solutions to a broken immigration system.

However, Republicans won't agree to that. Why? Because it would help make the situation at the border better, and they don't want that under any circumstance.

They would rather continue the cruelty:

The cruelty of seeing migrants fleeing horrific circumstances thanks to Republican Governors who use their own military to block Border Patrol agents from doing their jobs and saving lives;

The cruelty of blaming immigrants for everything just to try and win elections;

The cruelty of separating mothers from their babies.

That is the extreme Republican playbook.

Let's stop wasting everyone's time with this empty rhetoric and work on some real solutions. Vote ``no'' on this fact-free resolution.