Providing for Consideration of H.R. Equal Access to Green Cards for Legal Employment Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. Veteran Service Recognition Act of and for Other Purposes

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Representative from Massachusetts for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, we are here to discuss H.R. 3648, the Equal Access to Green Cards for Legal Employment, or the EAGLE Act, and H.R. 7946, the Veteran Service Recognition Act.

The EAGLE Act would do away with country caps for certain employment- based green cards. Unfortunately, the bill we are debating today changes a carefully negotiated and agreed-upon bill from last Congress, favoring a Democrat go-it-alone approach that, unfortunately, we have seen all too often in this body over the last 2 years.

One of the most shocking changes is the exclusion of critical language to prevent those associated with the Chinese Communist Party or the Chinese armed forces from admission to these immigration programs.

When this came through the Judiciary Committee, Congressman Bishop offered an amendment to add language that once again clarified that CCP members are ineligible to participate in these programs. That amendment failed on a party-line vote. We all know the CCP is not a good-faith actor, and I am appalled that the majority would risk our national security by rejecting that amendment.

H.R. 7946, the Veteran Service Recognition Act, aims to establish a program within the DHS for noncitizens to receive citizenship through service in the military. Based on the title, it sounds like a good bill.

Of course, those who served honorably in the Armed Forces should be honored for their valor and sacrifice. But despite the title, this bill did not even go through the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Why? Because it is just one more example of the Democrats exploiting a sympathetic population to push their open border policies. They should be ashamed.

I will also point out that there are already procedures in place by which noncitizen servicemembers can be rewarded for their sacrifices for this country. The Immigration and Nationality Act established special avenues to naturalize members or veterans in the U.S. military. These procedures have been in place since 2002.

Under the current INA, it rightfully does not offer this opportunity to those who are dishonorably discharged or those who have committed a serious crime. But the bill we are discussing today, either through poor drafting or purposeful vagueness, does offer a citizenship path to those people.

In the Judiciary Committee, several amendments were offered to ensure dangerous criminals did not receive an adjustment of immigration status, amendments that included crimes like illicit trafficking in firearms and human trafficking, and each amendment failed.

Why are my colleagues across the aisle so eager to have criminals on the streets of our communities?

This bill doesn't even apply to just veterans. It would expand protections for noncitizen family members of veterans, who would otherwise be deported for committing crimes. Drug smugglers, human traffickers, and domestic abusers who never even served in our Armed Forces would be allowed to avoid deportation because of this bill.

I am also concerned that this bill relies heavily on the interpretation of the Secretary of Homeland Security. As it is written, DHS does not have to deport nearly anyone, leaving it to the DHS Secretary to exercise discretion in almost all cases.

Secretary Mayorkas has done nothing to ease the immigration crisis in this country.

Do we really want to give someone like that more responsibility?

I am skeptical that an individual who can't even admit that the border is not secure will treat this increased discretion in a manner that is required to keep our communities safe.

Before I reserve, I will note that the rule before us provides no Republican amendments in order, continuing a trend by this majority of stifling debate and suppressing the minority party's opportunity to offer changes or ideas to improve the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, it is for that reason I oppose the rule, and I ask Members to do the same.

I want to comment on the so-called gimmicky amendments. I don't see it as gimmicky when we are trying to stop criminals from staying in our country. I don't see it as gimmicky when we are trying to stop human traffickers. I don't see it as gimmicky when we are trying to stop those who have trafficked firearms. I don't see that as gimmicky. I see that as trying to protect the people of the country and making sure that we do not allow criminals to continue to stay in our country.

As for the issue of current law, if it is the case that those associated with the CCP are already not allowed under current law, then there is no issue to just put this in the bill just in case and make sure that we have satisfied the concerns of people who are concerned about allowing those CCP members into the country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

This majority all too often uses flowery titles to mask the bill's true meaning. The Veteran Service Recognition Act is another one of these examples. It leads the public to believe we are looking at a bill that would recognize the service of our veterans. But once again, when you take a closer look, it becomes painfully clear that this is another push for open borders. This bill intends to pave a far broader pathway to citizenship not just for veterans. A path already exists for veterans since 2002, but this bill opens a path to criminals, something Democrats rejected every opportunity they had to keep criminals out of the program.

In just 2 short years, the American people have watched as the situation at the southern border has deteriorated into nothing short of a crisis. I would have hoped that my colleagues would treat this situation a little more seriously, but unfortunately, I have come to expect nothing less.

This bill is just one more example of how deeply unserious my colleagues in the majority are of addressing the disaster at our southern border. I oppose this rule, and I ask Members to do the same.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source