Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I will try not to take more time than is necessary for a bipartisan bill that has broad support, but I do rise today in support of H.R. 6610, the Passport System Reform and Backlog Prevention Act.

I became the author of this bill not in the usual way as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but actually as a man who has three constituent service personnel who spend a great deal of their time dealing with the fact that when a backlog becomes pervasive, what ends up happening is every passport renewal becomes an emergency, and it becomes an expedited payment. It becomes, in short, a problem that should not have happened.

We certainly understand that during COVID there were a number of problems. One of them was the State Department had never prepared for being able to, in any remote way, process passports. So during that time, the backlog became understandably immense.

Be that as it may, in the several years since COVID has passed, the backlog has continued, and it has never reached an acceptable point for the American people.

Even today, Mr. Speaker, when you surrender a passport for renewal, you have no idea whether it will be weeks or even months before you get one. Most people are advised to pay the expedited fee. In fact, the expedited fee seldom gives them the speed that was intended.

We have talked to several countries, if you will, not necessarily our peers, but countries that have the same challenges we have. Britain, Japan, and Australia routinely reauthorize within a matter of days while we take a 5- to 8-week turnaround.

That is unacceptable. We are the country that effectively created the computer, created automation, and created the ability for something as mundane as adding a new picture to a previously issued passport. We should and could beat this.

The modernization is the first since the days of the early modem, the item that made sound and certainly could transport only a small amount of information.

Congressional intervention is needed. The State Department understands that, and for that reason, we have five basic principles in this, the most important of which is that we ask for private-sector techniques to be used and, in fact, for the State Department to work with the private sector that is more than capable of creating a faster system. In fact, some American companies are processing passports for other countries.

Mr. Speaker, this is so frustrating because today we are, in fact, impeaching upon. We are impeaching upon for the President. The Secretary is being impeached for what he did wrong. He is, in fact, guilty as alleged, but, in fact, he is just part of the high crimes and misdemeanors of the President of the United States.

It was the President's decision to, in fact, undo policies that were working, to reverse, to make a systemic change that in my district, with over 55 miles of Mexican border, my border agents are reduced to being Uber drivers for everyone coming over the border.

I am perfectly willing to listen to people say that this is a policy difference, but it is not. To faithfully execute the mission, you can have differences in how to do it. To thwart the very execution of that mission, which Secretary Mayorkas has done, is, in fact, an impeachable offense.

I have some sympathy for him because I believe he is just obeying the orders of his boss, but that has been said before. That excuse has been used. The fact is, he took an oath. He must faithfully execute that oath. If he cannot, because the President will not let him do it, then he needs to resign.

As we impeach the first Cabinet officer in well over 100 years, the fact is, he should have resigned rather than to do things which were adverse to the Constitution, adverse to his oath, but upon the orders and duty of the President.

The President can be wrong. The President can order high crimes and misdemeanors. The President can be guilty of them. This President is, in fact, guilty of that which we are impeaching the Secretary for today, but so is the Secretary, and for that reason, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize and celebrate the life and accomplishments of Karen Roseberry, who passed away on January 12, 2024.

Mrs. Roseberry devoted her life to public service: in the classroom, health clinics, and political arenas. She was a highly-regarded educator, teaching hundreds of students over a nearly ten-year span. Mrs. Roseberry also served as an advisor to several candidates running for public office.

Mrs. Roseberry's passion for helping others was demonstrated through her time as Executive Director of the Women's Resource Center in Lancaster, California, which offered counseling, testing, and spiritual support for expectant mothers and fathers. Her tireless dedication to protecting the health and welfare of the unborn was illuminated through her work on the California Prolife Council, most recently serving as Vice President.

Mrs. Roseberry's years of service left a lasting impact on Southern California--and the entire state--that will be admired and modeled for future leaders to reproduce. While we mourn the loss of an extraordinary leader in our community, we can find joy in the fact that Mrs. Roseberry's legacy will continue to enrich the lives of Californians to come.

Mr. Speaker, today I take a moment to recognize Army Captain Kirk R. Proctor, Jr., an exceptional Officer, leader and public servant.

Cpt. Proctor has concluded a year as a member of my legislative team, and within this duration, he has made a real impact on a multitude of defense, national security, and foreign affairs policy initiatives.

His on-the-ground perspective bolstered by my team's analysis--from how the industrial base ties into the operational force, to explaining the evolution of military medicine, and how readiness initiatives intersect with military family quality of life. Furthermore, Cpt. Proctor has inspired colleagues to learn more about the defense industry through his application of institutional knowledge and hard- earned experiences.

Cpt. Proctor's unwavering dedication to my office and contributions to Congress have not gone unnoticed. His commitment to the American people and passion for public service is admirable, and I hope he is offered the most unique opportunities and enriching assignments as he continues his career as an Army Officer. I wish Cpt. Proctor and his wife Sabia the best of luck as he begins his next assignment as a legislative liaison, and I look forward to seeing him lead in the years to come.

On behalf of the U.S. Congress and a grateful Nation, I extend my deepest appreciation to Captain Kirk R. Proctor, Jr., and I congratulate him as he continues a career of public service within the U.S. Army and to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, recognizing and safeguarding intellectual property rights is a vital interest for the United States and a critical component of our leadership, which has historically championed strong IP rights.

Consistent and strong IP rights ensure that business will seek to innovate in the U.S. and enjoy the protections granted under our Constitution and laws.

It goes without saying that strong IP protections require that the government respect IP ownership and the right of IP owners to control who exercises their rights.

Similarly obvious is that the government should not condone IP theft.

That is exactly what has happened with the trademarks stolen by the Communist government of Cuba.

As if oppressing and brutalizing the Cuban people was not enough, the Castro regime also stole IP from legitimate owners during its vicious takeover of Cuba.

This included stealing valuable trademarks, such as ``Havana Club,'' from the Arechabala family.

The Arechabala family for years invested their time and resources building a world-renowned brand for their rum only to have the Communists steal it along with the rest of their property, including all of their production facilities.

The Castro regime then embarked on decades of exploiting that IP, manufacturing and exporting rum using the ``Havana Club'' trademark they stole.

The Arechabala family never recovered from what happened to them, but they transferred their rightful interests in their trademarks to the Bacardi family and company in the U.S.

As a world leader when it comes to IP rights, it should be clear that the U.S. government would side with Bacardi in a dispute between them and the Castro regime over these trademarks.

But in 2016, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, recognized the Cuban regime's claim on the ``Havana Club'' trademark even though it was stolen by the Cuban regime.

That is why I introduced this bill, which prohibits the executive branch from recognizing, enforcing, or validating any trademark used in connection with a business or assets that were confiscated without the consent of the original owner or successor-in-interest.

I was delighted to be joined by my Democratic colleague, Ms. Wasserman Schultz of Florida, in introducing it, and the bill has since been cosponsored by 17 other Members from both parties on the way to being overwhelmingly approved by the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis.

We all agree that the U.S. government should not reward those who would steal and exploit trademarks, or any other IP, without the consent of the legitimate owners.

Allowing Cuba to propagate its misappropriation of IP also sets a harmful precedent for international IP protections.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1505) to modify the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial names, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 1505.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is hard for the American people to believe, but it is true that foreign actors--foreign countries--have, in fact, stolen trademarks, absconded with the actual factories and the ability to produce various items and then had the gall to, in fact, use American law to sell America products that they in reality had already stolen.

This is no more truer than in the case of the communist nation of Cuba.

Under Fidel Castro, Cuba took everything. They took Coca-Cola. They took every possible item they could take, and then they took trade names. In some cases, like Coca-Cola, Coke continued to be produced in the United States, so it had no rights.

In the case of Bacardi, Bacardi moved to Puerto Rico and began making it there and selling it in the United States. In the case of, for example, Havana Club, they found themselves without any factories, so they worked together with other producers to continue their brand. While their brand was, in fact, being produced in America, the Castro regime--and now the Cuban Government--continued to apply year after year until eventually, due to what we would consider to be a wrongful act by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, awarded this country, who had stolen and still to this day uses the factories and the lands belonging to the family that produced Havana Club, they continue to sell Havana Club.

Now, to make matters worse, we are only talking about the United States because most of the world, in fact, took that brand name and was able to sell it in other countries. So the family that owned worldwide rights lost all but the United States, and if not for this piece of legislation, they and others would lose even their right here.

I am delighted to join with my colleague, Ms. Wasserman Schultz of Florida, to introduce this bill. It has 17 cosponsors, and it passed through the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis.

We all agree that the U.S. Government should not award those who steal and exploit trademarks or any other intellectual property from its legitimate owners to then benefit from U.S. law. Allowing Cuba to propagate its misappropriations would be and is currently a travesty.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will make it very clear, if this product's trademark becomes available to its rightful owners again, the well-known company Bacardi will, in fact, have this product on the shelves again. If it is not passed, Cuba will not be able to sell under this name. In fact, these products would be prohibited if they came from Cuba.

The only purpose of Cuba trying to take this was to deny Cuban Americans the ability to sell a product that they owned before it was taken from the country.

There was an injustice that occurred before many in this room were born. We can only cure that injustice now by, in fact, passing this legislation.

I join with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) in urging all to vote for this bill as they have in this body, and then we will work on the people across the dome.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1105) to amend the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 to reauthorize the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 1105.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. Speaker, much has been said, but I am going to close with just two important items. One is that there is no question at all but that this has been a good reauthorization because it calls for the accountability and the audit to find out why the backlog persists and to find ways to eliminate it. Second is its original purpose. Its original purpose, more than anything else, is very simple. There are hundreds of rapists out there, and they will continue to perpetrate their crimes until they are caught. This DNA evidence, in fact, takes rapists off the street that otherwise will be committing these crimes, violating other persons, until they are stopped. For that reason, we must reauthorize and appropriate for this legislation. It is critical that we take these evil people off the street. This is the way to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, many in this body continue to say that no words can describe the horror that the Israeli people are facing. That is not true. There are words to describe it and they have to be said. Some of those words are simply the facts, the real information that we are not seeing. One of them is that we are constantly hearing from pro- Palestinian groups that in fact you have a right to resist occupation.

I have been in this body since 2001. I was in Israel under Ariel Sharon when he withdrew every single settler and every soldier from Gaza. Gaza has not been under occupation, just the opposite. When they didn't like the control they had after an election, Hamas seized, by violence, the control of Gaza, killing their fellow Palestinians. Since that time, they have been a war-making machine that has in fact been financed by Iran, equipped by Iran, and today it is Iran that owes an apology to the world, and the Palestinian people need to discount forever their association.

Mr. Chair, I can only say that the gentleman from Florida is mistaken.

His amendment assumes the Lebanese Armed Forces is in some sort of disarray. It is not. It is the most respected institution in Lebanon.

It assumes that it has not been a good steward of the moneys it has received. It has. As a matter of fact, multiple administrations have certified that not a single piece of capital equipment has ever been lost.

It assumes that somehow it is in the pocket of Hezbollah.

I was in Lebanon and Israel in 2006 as Israel tried to defeat Hezbollah and did not. Since that time, we have continued to bolster the Lebanese Armed Forces to fight ISIS and other forces and to maintain a situation in which American oversight is possible, both military and civilian, because of the Lebanese Armed Forces.

Lebanon is in an economic free fall, and as a result of its economic situation, there is direct aid, but that aid is not highly paid generals. As a matter of fact, if not for our aid, it would be likely that most members of the Lebanese Armed Forces would not report to their barracks. They would not have enough money for gasoline. This essential support was necessitated based on their economic downfall.

We who visited Lebanon, who have seen it, and worked with both our military and our State Department stand behind the necessity and the accuracy of this support aid, and we oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in short, this is overly broad. I repeat, this is overly broad. As an American of Arab ancestry and a Christian, it would, in fact, be devastating to the Chaldean community left in Iraq. It would be devastating to the support we have.

Mr. Chair, representing one of the largest Chaldean districts in the country, I meet every week with these Iraqi Christians who know that their families depend on our continued engagement.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Chair, we are in a competition right now--it is undeniable--with a Chinese Communist Party-led country. We have been in that race for more than 40 years.

Decades ago, we made a decision that engagement would change the trajectory of China. It was a fair and reasonable attempt, but throughout those years, as China has gained power, they have only gained a ruthless disregard for the norms of our planet, including those that they bid into.

They claim to be a fair trader; they are not. They claimed that they would not steal technology; they did. As a matter of fact, they have ruthlessly become the largest spy organization, not just on our military and defense structures but, in fact, on our industries. It is legendary the level that they have one-sided done to.

For that reason it is time for us to shift.

Under the last administration, we began shifting. Under this administration we continue to recognize China as a threat. In those years since we opened up our relationship, we did a number of things as a planet, as a world, as countries.

Hong Kong and Macau were voluntarily given back, each based on a promise to their host nations that they would continue to operate in a way that was consistent with the democracies that had led them.

In both cases through a slow but steady change, that has been completely eroded.

An old communist statement that I think bears repeating, is that when we will be hung, when capitalism will be hung, they will be hung with a rope that we sold to the communist. It is time to stop selling rope to China.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, earlier I attempted to quote Vladimir Lenin: The capitalist will sell the rope with which we hang them. This is exactly what we have been doing.

There is another truism that came from Einstein: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.

If the administration wants to negotiate something new and bring it to us in a way in which we believe the outcome will be different, let them do it. We simply cannot continue doing the same thing for decades with currently tens of thousands of actual hits on our country by the Chinese Communist Party to steal our technology daily--something that our administrations have said.

It is no longer one of those instances in which they are stealing ancient technology or they are trying to catch up. When one of our Cabinet officers recently visited China, she arrived only to find them demonstrating 5G technology and 7 nanometer chip technology in order to show us that they had stolen the technology necessary to be cutting edge in the cellular world and in chip production.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, in closing, every day, this administration tells us the nature of the kind of technology theft that is going on.

The conclusion of this amendment is simply the result of the very statements made not by the previous administration but by the current administration, and this supports the recognition. It is time to make real change. This amendment does that.

Mr. Chair, I urge support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mrs, Zinetta Marie Nassif.

Mrs. Nassif was born on June 3, 1944, and lived an incredible life serving her family, community, and country. She had a passion for her loved ones and a remarkable giving spirit. Mrs. Nassif was often described as the most fun to be around at a party, as she had a keen sense for bringing people together. Her ability to connect was best exemplified during her tenure abroad with her husband, Ambassador Thomas Nassif.

Mrs. Nassif served alongside her husband, Thomas Nassif, when he was Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Morocco. Mrs. Nassif's diplomatic efforts were highly regarded by those she worked with. Her commitment to public service and unwavering support for her husband made her a beloved figure in Morocco and at home in the United States. The Nassifs' legacy of service to their country will always be remembered and admired by those who knew them.

On August 5, 2023, Mrs. Zinetta Marie Nassif passed away at her home in La Jolla, California. Mrs. Nassif left a noteworthy impact across the globe with her servant's heart, and her legacy will continue to inspire future generations of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize and celebrate the life and legacy of George Glen Prietto, Kumeyaay Native and Sycuan Tribal Elder from the 48th District of California.

Mr. Prietto was born on January 26, 1931, at the Soboba Indian Hospital. He moved to the Sycuan Reservation and attended Dehesa School and Grossmont High School.

Before he was 18, Mr. Prietto joined the U.S. Army as an infantryman and served with distinction during the Korean War. He was honorably discharged after 4 years of service.

After his military service, Mr. Prietto became a proud farmworker in Yuma--picking lettuce in the sun and train-hopping to Lodi to pick grapes. After years of painstaking labor, he transitioned to driving big-rig trucks.

Mr. Prietto eventually returned to the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation and cofounded the Sycuan Fire Department with Hank Murphy. He served as a dedicated firefighter on the reservation, including transporting patients for the Southern Indian Health Clinic, for which he was celebrated upon retirement.

Mr. Prietto dedicated himself to preserving and teaching the Kumeyaay language. He taught hundreds of children, stressing the importance of family values and celebrating their culture.

Mr. Prietto loved spending time with his life-long friends, including Kenny Meza, Leroy Elliott, Paul Cuero, Jr., Steve Banegas and Bobby Wallace. His family meant everything--especially his marriage to Terri and spending time with his nephews Raymond and Joe Sandoval.

While we mourn the loss of a great leader, tribal elder, family man, and veteran, we can find solace in the fact that Mr. Prietto's legacy will continue to enrich the lives of generations to come.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have but 5 minutes to ensure that this goes by voice, so I will do my best.

Mr. Chairman, no one here doubts 100 percent of the time the responsible party from just above the ground to over 60,000 feet belongs to the FAA. Any decision about whether an aircraft can operate or cannot operate belongs exclusively to the FAA. For that reason, the FAA is an independent body that has a responsibility to take seriously the implementation of NOTAMs. These NOTAMs either caution pilots or prevent pilots from flying.

Recently, there have been a number of requests where the FAA has acted not on behalf of its own judgment but on behalf of a request by another agency. These agencies include CBP, the Department of Justice, FBI, FTC, and many others.

These come in regularly, and I have no objection. There are plenty of good reasons that an entity--we were just talking about a little while ago the Park Service might even have a request. Because the FAA has an obligation to make airspace available wherever possible and at the lowest level of regulation and the greatest freedom and safety for the pilots, and it does have the obligation--when, for safety and other reasons, there needs to be temporary or permanent prohibitions on flying--to implement them.

My amendment simply puts a requirement that when the FAA does so that they do so based on the FAA making an independent and objective judgment when it receives NOTAM requests from other agencies.

Mr. Chairman, I hope my 5 minutes has been well spent, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and he is absolutely right. There are a great many NOTAMs. I remind everyone that the requirement in this amendment that it requires the FAA to make an independent and objective judgment does not mean that it must do independent research as to the validity of the request as far as background.

It can, in fact, take the word of an agency's statement of its reason, but it has to make an independent judgment as to the NOTAM.

Now, I am both a pilot of more than 40 years, and I am also a former Army officer, and I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, at the company, the battalion, and the brigade level every unit in the military has a staff duty officer who for the entire evening until morning and over weekends makes judgment on behalf of the commanding officer at that level.

Why do they have that?

It is because a level of review should always be available. It doesn't have to be extensive, but it does have to be sufficient that if it came through the FAA it would independently be looked at by the duty officer before it was put up as a NOTAM. The same is asked.

Nowhere in my amendment does it prohibit delegation all the way down to the lowest level. As a matter of fact, nowhere in this does it prohibit the use of AI and other tools to help them do it.

So I think this is not burdensome, and it is easily compliable. It does say that the FAA makes the decision, not an agency that plugs into a system who may not have the mandate, responsibility, or even the expertise to do so.

Periodic NOTAMs that have had to be pulled back when they have been submitted by other agencies are the reason for this amendment. We have actual examples where the FAA would not have done it had they made an independent decision.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, briefly, in response to my colleague from Tennessee, the majority of FAA NOTAMs do not originate from outside agencies. This is a fraction of a fraction of all NOTAMs, and it is only those that will be affected by this amendment.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, this is not what some who oppose it would say. This is, in fact, a very minor one, but it comes with specific requirements that exist for a reason. Agencies have chosen and actually embarrass the FAA by asking for a closing of airspace only to find out in the light of day, in a matter of days that, in fact, it was a huge mistake--sometimes politically driven. It doesn't matter why. The FAA has the right and the responsibility, and all we ask for is when it comes from an outside agency that it, in fact, have a once-over before being codified.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk; No. 61, oddly enough.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

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

I wish my colleague had stayed for a little longer because I would like to change his mind as to why I am doing it, what I am doing, and what the purpose would be.

My office has been in pretty constant contact with many of the families--more than 10 of them--of the 13 who lost their lives in the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Many of the individuals, the family members have asked specific questions that have never been answered, and they continue to want to have specific questions answered, particularly and including, obviously, individuals, what we knew about them, how they came to be released, a lot of the activities that went on.

Now, some of it will have to be transmitted on a classified basis, but most of it can be given to the committees of jurisdiction openly.

Those families, the families of the 13 and the families of all of the others who have lost their lives, deserve closure. I believe that although the special IG and lots of other organizations have done a lot of good work, much of it is not yet available to Congress, and as a result, not available to the families or to the American people.

For that reason, I crafted this multipage amendment specifically and narrowly to ask for information that to a great extent has not yet been granted, which the Department of Defense has.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I wish that the gentleman would come with me. On Monday night, I will have more than two dozen of the family members for dinner after votes, and you are invited. My treat.

The fact is, those unanswered questions are not because voluminous documents haven't been requested, and in some cases, many have been received. It is because when committees ask--and I have plenty of experience on oversight. When committees ask, they get told we will provide you such information as is appropriate to your request and we determine should be granted. That is short of when you pass a law.

The weight of this amendment in this act will, in fact, have a weight of law for compliance. That is a weight of law which is higher than a committee requesting or even a committee subpoena. That is the reason that this is different.

This will ensure that if someone says, look, we have already granted it all, they can either push a button and duplicate it, they can give us stacks from other reports or, in fact, they can look one more time for the information we have been asking for and be more complete, compliant with a law that will ultimately be signed by the President.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me tell a quick story. Some years ago, we subpoenaed information from the Department of Justice. The Attorney General himself, then Eric Holder, came before me both in committee and personally up to and including the moment in which he was held in contempt, met with us in the Speaker's office, and assured us that if we would just take the 279 pages that was fully meeting all of our requests and accept that as a complete record and be done with it, that he would give them to us. Otherwise, he would withhold them.

We held him in contempt. We went to court, and many months later, Amy Berman Jackson, a Federal judge, said: Let me see the documents you are withholding, and all of them that you are claiming the executive privilege. All of them that, in fact, are responsive to his request.

We received thousands of pages that never went to Amy Berman Jackson because they had no merit. Then we received more than 10,000 more pages that did go through a review process; 279, 2,000, 10,000. The fact is, it is not new for administrations to give you some documents and not look thoroughly until there is a compelling law.

I do not want to go back through the process of going to a Federal judge or holding someone in contempt. This is a way to ensure that they either comply or honestly tell us they have already complied. I cannot take the word this lightly of any administration. I have been down that road before.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 382) condemning the rise of antisemitism and calling on elected officials to identify and educate others on the contributions of the Jewish American community, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 382, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, Jewish American Heritage Month, first proclaimed by George W. Bush in 2006 and by each successive President since, recognizes the great contribution that the Jewish community has given to this country since its founding. Recognizing this month is particularly important because of the rise of anti-Semitism over the last few years.

Recently, Mr. Speaker, the Judiciary Committee heard testimony regarding anti-Semitism and the violence that has now erupted.

In our hearing, Barry Borgen told the committee about attacks on his son in New York City. Joseph Borgen was targeted simply for wearing his yarmulke and was beaten by several individuals for nothing other than being recognized as an observant Jew. He was kicked, punched, hit, and, in fact, pepper sprayed by his attackers in a horrific attack simply because of his faith.

At this time around the world, we see the rise of anti-Semitism. America for more than half a century, for almost a century, has become the beacon of freedom for the world. In that time, we have had to show the world that anti-Semitism has no place in America and should have no place in the rest of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to associate myself with the ranking member's statements. I have served, as long as I have served, with the gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler has been a leader on this, and this is a bipartisan issue, one that each year we are honored to come before this Congress and renew our statement of solidarity with this community that has, in fact, as the gentleman said, grown in numbers, mostly because they have been persecuted around the world.

This year is no exception. As we speak, the President of Ukraine is being called a Nazi in order to diminish who he is and his faith. It is only in this kind of a world where you can use terms like that as a Russian head of state in order to try to diminish somebody duly elected.

As I said in my opening statement--and I will say it again and again every chance I get--if America does not lead in crushing anti-Semitism and denouncing it, the rest of the world will take it as it is okay to do. We cannot ever again allow what we saw in World War II. We cannot ever again turn a blind eye to the growth of anti-Semitism here or around the world. I stand with my colleague from New York in saying that is more essential this year than ever before.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, much will be said on this floor today about anti- Semitism, and it should be, but let us not fail to expand the deliberation on why we have a Jewish American Heritage Month. We don't just have it to combat anti-Semitism. We have it as an awareness of the great contribution that the Jewish community has given to this country from before its birth through today in education and culture, and of that culture, how much the American people do not know about the richness of the family traditions and the like that the Jewish community brings to us.

It is often said, maybe just in passing, that we are a Judeo- Christian society, but many people miss that that small minority represents a great part of who we are as a nation.

As we observe this month, we need to observe this month recognizing the amazing contribution that, as Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz said, we, in fact, are talking about 2 percent of the population who does far more than you would begin to believe 2 percent can do, Mr. Speaker.

I want to make sure that we all understand that the importance of this month is the importance of the contribution of this community to our society for over 200 years.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this should be the kind of resolution that would be a given, but it is never a given until you say it and say it and say it again.

We say--and we must say--``never again'' about the Holocaust, but we also must say that anti-Semitism has no place in this great country of freedom.

Mr. Speaker, you cannot have freedom of religion unless you have freedom of all religions, and freedom of religion isn't simply that I can practice my religion and denounce the other or that I can have slurs about the other. Religious freedom is the acceptance that we have a God or the right to not have a God, and in so doing, we must accept the other person's limited changes.

There is so little difference between the beliefs of the Jewish community and the beliefs of all of America that those differences should unite us in their smallness rather than divide us.

America, like every country in the world, needs to get to know its neighbor. This is the month in which we get to know our neighbor.

Mr. Speaker, if you are fortunate enough to have a Jewish neighbor or a Jewish friend or someone who can help you understand the richness of their culture and their religion, then you are very fortunate. If you are not, then you need to seek one out.

That is why we are doing this here today, because it doesn't happen without being said and said again. We say, one last time, never again to anti-Semitism in America.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I received my current district in redistricting, I was pleased that it was a border district, all along the Mexican border from the Tijuana area all the way through the rest of the county.

It isn't a border area today. There is no border. If there is no border with Mexico, then there is no border with America.

Every day, people pass through. Some are found. Some are not found. Some are stopped for a period of time, but few are turned away. They are not turned away because we simply have a policy of letting everyone in.

I also represent a major agricultural district with ranching and farming, and guess what? With all those millions of people who this administration has deliberately allowed to come in without having been invited, without prescreening, without an application, we still have a shortage because of the policies of simply catch and release with parole.

I will tell you what else my district is dealing with. We are dealing with enough fentanyl seized last year--117,000 pounds. If divided equally, it would kill every person in America in one dose.

Just last week, the California Highway Patrol seized $21 million worth of fentanyl well into the United States on its way to L.A. That would be enough fentanyl to kill every San Diegan. That is what we are dealing with because we have no border.

My Democrat friends, Mr. Speaker, will tell you about how it is not good, that it is not good enough, that we need to have comprehensive reform.

Like you, Mr. Speaker, I have pushed for comprehensive reform, but comprehensive reform is not simply to normalize what is going on. Comprehensive reform has to be a balance of enforcement and fair immigration rules.