Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Paul Albert Mider, a dedicated public servant and beloved family man who passed away at the age of 77 on February 20, 2024.

A stalwart public servant and cherished family man, Paul's journey in public service began after he answered the call to serve our nation by enlisting in the United States Air Force during the Vietnam War, where he excelled as an Aeromedical Specialist in North Dakota and Canada.

Upon completing his military service, Paul relocated to Washington, D.C., and embarked on a career as a psychiatric technician, dedicating himself to those grappling with mental health and substance abuse challenges. His pursuit of knowledge continued at the University of Maryland, where he obtained his undergraduate degree, followed by further studies at New Yolk University and Fielding Graduate University.

A relentless commitment to service defined Paul's professional life. He contributed significantly to the Veterans Administration's substance abuse programs and was a trailblazer in identifying Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder among Vietnam War veterans. His expertise also brought him to the New York City Fire Department, where he was instrumental in establishing their Counseling Unit, providing essential support to firefighters during and following the catastrophic events of September 11, 2001.

In addition to his work with the VA and FDNY, Paul held various academic and clinical positions, directed the substance abuse division at the Long Island Jewish-Hillside Medical Center, and taught at numerous universities. He maintained a successful private practice focusing on substance abuse, anxiety, mood disorders, and family therapy. Paul's generosity extended to pro bono work in immigration hardship cases, assisting many in securing asylum and navigating the complex immigration system. Even in retirement, he continued contributing to his community as a

board member at Girling Home Health in Austin, Texas.

Paul's unwavering dedication to his family--including his beloved wife Barbara and sons Michael and Nicholas--and his profound passion for helping others serve as a testament to his exceptional character.

As we honor Paul's memory today, let us remember how his life's work and compassionate spirit profoundly impacted countless lives, leaving a legacy of love, service, and integrity. He will be sorely missed, but his contributions to mental health, veteran support, and community service will resonate for generations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution recognizing Jewish American Heritage Month and the important contributions that Jewish Americans have made to our history, our society, and our culture.

I thank Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz for introducing this resolution and for her passionate work to ensure that we in Congress and Americans around the country observe this annual celebration of the integral role Jewish Americans have played in shaping our Nation.

Congress first marked Jewish American Heritage Month in 2005, but, of course, Jewish contributions to American society began centuries ago, even before the founding of the United States. In fact, the first group of Jews arrived in the United Colonies in 1654, when they fled the Portuguese Inquisition and found refuge in New Amsterdam, what we now call New York City, and they have flourished ever since. This small Jewish community of 23 people fleeing persecution has grown into more than 7 million people, and Jewish Americans have become part of the essential fabric of the United States.

From the very founding of the country, Jews have been an integral part of the American story. Famously, in 1790, President George Washington wrote a letter to the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, in which he wrote: ``May the Children of the stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants; while everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.''

Courageous Jews have also been key figures in American history. In 1855, Rabbi David Einhorn became the first rabbi of Har Sinai Congregation in Baltimore, the oldest Reform American Jewish synagogue.

Unpopular in Baltimore at the time, Rabbi Einhorn passionately and vehemently wrote and spoke against slavery, decrying it as a moral evil. In 1861, after delivering a sermon denouncing slavery, a pro- slavery mob swelled and drove Rabbi Einhorn out of town.

Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, whose relationship with Reverend Martin Luther King has become one of the most famous interfaith partnerships in America, also spoke out courageously for civil rights. A professor at The Jewish Theological Seminary of America located in the Morningside Heights neighborhood of Manhattan, Rabbi Heschel had a vital and lasting contribution to religious discourse on civil rights.

On March 21, 1965, Rabbi Heschel marched arm in arm with Dr. King in Selma, Alabama, a pivotal moment in the history of this country. As Rabbi Heschel's daughter, Professor Susannah Heschel, wrote: ``The photograph of Abraham Joshua Heschel walking arm in arm with Martin Luther King, Jr., in the front row of marchers at Selma has become an icon of American Jewish life, and of Black-Jewish relations. Reprinted in Jewish textbooks, synagogue bulletins, and in studies of ecumenical relations, the picture has come to symbolize the great moment of symbiosis of the two communities, Black and Jewish. . . .''

I am proud to represent a district of one of the largest Jewish communities in the United States. New York 12 is home to many historic Jewish institutions that represent the rich diversity of this community. This includes two historic synagogues in the Upper West Side of Manhattan: Congregation Shearith Israel, which was founded by those 23 Jews in 1654, as well as the first Reconstructionist synagogue, the Society for the Advancement of Judaism, at which the first bat mitzvah in the United States took place.

As the most senior Jewish member of Congress, I am also keenly aware that as we celebrate the history and the contributions of Jewish Americans this year, Jewish American Heritage Month came on the backdrop of increased anti-Semitism in this country.

Anti-Semitism is not a new phenomenon and has plagued Jewish communities around the world for millennia. Yet, we have recently experienced a dramatic uptick in anti-Semitism. The Anti-Defamation League's 2023 Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents found a 140 percent increase from the 2022 audit and the highest number on record since the Anti-Defamation League began tracking it in 1979.

The ADL also recorded a 135 percent increase of anti-Semitic incidents at K-12 schools and a 321 percent increase on college and university campuses compared to the same time the previous year, with most occurring after October 7.

This harrowing uptick in anti-Semitic attacks is devastating and urgent. It demonstrates a necessity for us to redouble our efforts to combat this horrific hatred.

Last year, I warmly welcomed the first-ever national strategy to counter anti-Semitism, which was developed by the Biden administration.

This historic effort includes concrete steps that we can all take, including civil society, local government, Congress, and the executive branch to tangibly enact the priorities articulated in the strategy. This year, I believe we must all work to fully actualize and implement the national strategy, including passing the Countering Antisemitism Act championed by my friend Congresswoman Manning.

Jewish American Heritage Month reminds us that as we continue to fight against anti-Semitism, we also celebrate the countless contributions made by Jewish Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the chief sponsor of this resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, during Jewish American Heritage Month, we celebrated the rich history and many contributions of Jewish Americans. We also recognize that anti-Semitism continues to be a scourge in our society that we must continue to combat in all its forms.

I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) for bringing forward this important resolution.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Before I speak on the LEOSA Reform Act, let me express my deep disappointment in the behavior of the Judiciary Committee majority.

The Judiciary Committee is now considering a resolution to hold in contempt the Attorney General of the United States for refusing to submit certain audio recordings to the committee.

I think it is a deeply wrong request. I have expressed my opinion in committee. I am not going to go through it again here.

The point is, we have a series of Judiciary Committee bills now, and the Judiciary Committee is meeting on that resolution now. Members of the Judiciary Committee who may want to speak on this series of bills we are going to be considering now cannot because they are trapped in the Judiciary Committee considering the contempt resolution. I cannot vote against the contempt resolution because I am stuck here.

It is normally the practice that when you have committee business on the floor, you suspend the committee meeting so that people can do their work.

I very much protest that the committee is still meeting while we have committee bills on the floor so that I must choose between dealing with these bills or voting on the contempt citation, and other members of the committee cannot be here to debate these bills.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the LEOSA Reform Act. This bill threatens the safety of all Americans by advancing the Republican agenda of more guns for more people in more public places.

In 2004, Congress enacted the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, or LEOSA, which forced States to allow off-duty and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons even when doing so conflicted with that State's concealed carry laws.

It garnered bipartisan opposition, including from the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time, Mr. Sensenbrenner, because it supplanted the judgment of the States about the appropriate use of firearms.

It was also opposed by organizations such as the International Chiefs of Police, which was concerned that it could endanger law enforcement by causing confusion among local police who might not be able to distinguish between a criminal and the retired officer using a firearm.

Other organizations opposed it because it could put police agencies at risk for liability for an officer who misuses a weapon in another State and because the requirements for retired officers were insufficient.

Despite these objections, LEOSA became law, but importantly, it included exceptions for places like government buildings, gun-free school zones, and private property where States have a special interest in retaining control of their gun safety laws.

These exceptions have been in place for 20 years and have served as important protections, but this legislation tosses those exceptions out the window.

It forces States to allow off-duty and retired officers to carry firearms on playgrounds, in government buildings, and on buses, trains, subways, and boats.

It undermines State laws limiting magazine capacity. It reduces the rights of private property owners who may not want concealed weapons on their property or in their businesses.

It relaxes training standards so that some people will be able to carry a concealed firearm, even though it has been 3 years since their last firearms training certification.

In addition, this legislation unravels Federal laws that have kept firearms out of Federal facilities. It does this for Federal facilities that are ``open to the public'' that are classified as ``Facility Security Level I or II,'' definitions that will create significant confusion for those trying to abide by it and for those tasked with enforcing it.

For example, if a Federal facility is only partially open to the public or only open to the public during certain hours, does it fall within the bill's definition? We don't know.

What about a facility that is open to the public so long as they are not carrying firearms? The bill does not say.

As the bill itself states, the Facility Security Level is determined on a facility-by-facility basis and may not be publicly posted, so it is virtually impossible to know what Federal facilities are included in this definition.

We looked for a listing of Federal facilities that are classified at these security levels, and we could not find one.

Members may even have offices in Federal facilities that will suddenly be forced to allow concealed firearms in their doors as a result of this legislation.

Not only would this bill inject confusion into Federal law, but it also intrudes on private property rights and undermines States' careful determinations on how best to protect their citizens from gun violence.

I urge members to join me in opposing this misguided legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation intrudes on the States' ability to make their own judgments about public safety, concealed firearms, and the regulation of their own law enforcement and would make us all less safe.

We hear from the other side of the aisle all the time about States' rights. Then, we get legislation like this that overrules the States and says we know best about issues of public safety.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, this year, our Republican majority has wasted time passing three different but equally meaningless resolutions related to the Biden administration's immigration policies. This week, we debated a fourth.

We now move on to yet another meaningless and poorly written piece of immigration legislation. Just like the four resolutions, this bill is full of empty rhetoric that will do nothing to solve the situation at the border.

Not a single dollar will go to help our law enforcement agents at the border as a result of this bill. Not a single person will be denied entry to this country as a result of this bill. Not a single community will be made safer as a result of this bill.

It is just another stale attempt to demonize and fearmonger about immigrants wrapped in fresh packaging.

The bill itself is an oddly written and thrown together reporting bill that claims to require the Attorney General to produce a report on the impact of the Biden border crisis on Federal, State and Tribal law enforcement.

When it comes to reporting bills, I am usually supportive. It is essential for us to conduct oversight of the executive branch, and reports are an important way to do that.

Unfortunately, this bill is such a sham and is riddled with so much misinformation and blatantly partisan political rhetoric masquerading as fact that I cannot support it.

Here is just one example of how poorly written the bill is. It requires the Attorney General to report on the impact of the so-called Biden border crisis without defining that term. Without a definition, the term is meaningless, and the Attorney General would have no guidance to know what data the report should actually contain.

The obvious cheap political rhetoric exposes this legislation as an unserious messaging bill. Beyond that, in a world where my Republican colleagues consistently say that they do not trust the Attorney General to carry out their intent, the lack of definitions makes little sense.

The bill also attempts, incorrectly, to paint undocumented migrants as being the primary source of fentanyl brought into the country, when we know that this is not true. The vast majority of fentanyl is seized at ports of entry, trafficked by U.S. citizens. Over 86 percent of those convicted for fentanyl-related drug trafficking convictions are U.S. citizens.

Furthermore, cartels are not risking their product on people who illicitly cross the border between points of entry. In fiscal year 2023, CBP seized approximately 27,000 pounds of fentanyl. Less than 10 percent of those drugs were seized by the Border Patrol.

The vast majority, or roughly 90 percent of fentanyl, was seized by the Office of Field Operations, which mans the ports of entry.

Lastly, the bill asks the Attorney General to report on the resources devoted to addressing the border and the resources that are ``not available to law enforcement agencies.''

However, at every turn, it has been Republicans who have voted against giving DHS the resources it needs to do its job. In 2021, all but six current House Republicans voted against the bipartisan infrastructure deal, which provided additional funding to modernize ports of entry and allow for nonintrusive inspections to combat the smuggling of people and drugs.

Likewise, all but two current House Republicans voted against providing robust funding for Customs and Border Protection and border security operations in the FY 2023 appropriations omnibus legislation.

That bill provided more than $17 billion to CBP, including $60 million to hire an additional 125 CBP officers and $70 million for nonintrusive inspection technology to detect narcotics and firearms at ports of entry.

When it comes to the President's supplemental request, which would provide $14 billion for border security, we have not had a single hearing, let alone a vote on the request. The President has requested vital funds for 375 immigration judges and 1,600 asylum officers to speed up processing of asylum claims so that people could get their asylum claims adjudicated in weeks, not in years.

The Republicans are fond of talking about catch and release, but that is because it takes years for someone to get his asylum case adjudicated. The President has requested these funds, and if he got the 375 immigration judges and 1,600 asylum officers as well as the funds, you would adjudicate these cases in weeks, not years.

He has also asked for funds for additional personnel at ports of entry and technology to stop drugs from coming into the country. The Republicans have said no.

As a final indication of just how unserious this bill is, its findings state that Congress should pass and the President should sign into law ``strong border security legislation.''

Never mind the fact that it was House Republicans who walked away from a bill negotiated by one of the most conservative Members of the Senate, a bill that Senator McConnell called the toughest border bill in 30 years, all because Donald Trump told them he wanted the issue for the election, not a solution.

Now, I know my Republican friends will say, well, there is H.R. 2, which is a better bill. Well, I don't know whether it is a better bill, but it is a bill that cannot pass. It could not get more than 32 votes in the Senate with 49 Republican Members.

You don't get strong border security legislation by passing congressional resolutions and reports. You have to do the hard work of legislating, but that appears to be far beyond the capacity of this Republican majority. Instead, they are reduced to pointless bills like this that accomplish nothing and are full of misleading talking points.

We deserve better than this waste of time.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

My friend from New York talks about the Biden border crisis, and he talks about the bill that failed in the Senate because the former President, former President Trump, told the Senate, told Republicans not to vote for it because he wanted an issue. He didn't want the problem solved; he wanted an issue.

He said it in his own words. Congressman Nehls said it in his own words.

H.R. 2, which they claim to support, in fact, would never get more than 32 votes in a 49 Republican Member Senate. Republicans didn't support it, never mind the Democrats.

The only viable bill was the bill negotiated by Mitch McConnell and Senator Lankford. It was the most conservative bill in a generation, and one that was supported by the union representing the Border Patrol people. However, that bill was killed because President Trump wanted no progress and said so. At least he was honest about it. He said: I don't want any progress in this area. I want an issue.

My Republican friends are talking about the issue that could have been solved by now if it weren't for President Trump's ordering them not to solve it.

We will hear a lot of rhetoric about solving a problem when they are participating in what amounts to a plot not to solve the problem by passing the strict bill that could have been passed, that was supported by and that is supported by the union representing the border patrolmen and could actually solve the problem.

They don't want to solve the problem. They just want to talk about the problem.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would update the report required by this bill to include the nationality of any noncitizen who exposes a law enforcement officer to fentanyl during an encounter at the border and in the United States.

Just like the underlying bill, this amendment is another attempt to incorrectly paint undocumented migrants as being the prime source of fentanyl brought into the country.

We already know that the vast majority of fentanyl is seized at ports of entry, trafficked by U.S. citizens. As I stated previously, in fiscal year 2023, CBP seized approximately 27,000 pounds of fentanyl.

Less than 10 percent of these drugs were seized by the Border Patrol. The vast majority, roughly 90 percent of the fentanyl was seized by the Office of Field Operations, which mans the ports of entry.

My Republican colleagues always respond that this is the case because ports of entry are where we have resources to interdict the drugs, but this is also wrong.

Unfortunately, because Republicans refuse to adequately fund ports of entry, only 2 percent of passenger vehicles and 16 percent of commercial vehicles are inspected.

We would likely catch even more drugs carried in by U.S. citizens if CBP had all the resources it needed. However, at every turn, it has been Republicans who have voted against giving DHS the resources it needs to do its job.

This bill is so full of misinformation and could actually use some facts, so I will not oppose this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would update the findings section of this bill to include a provision that states that it is in the best interests of law enforcement officers and the communities they serve for President Biden to use section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to secure the southern border.

To be clear, the President does not have the authority to unilaterally shut down the border. President Biden cannot simply use Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to prevent immigrants from crossing the border. In fact, when President Trump tried to do exactly that in 2018, he was immediately shot down by the courts.

Moreover, enforcement-only solutions don't work. The best way to secure the border is to expand lawful pathways and to adequately fund the immigration system.

We have not updated our legal immigration system in over 30 years. The more broken the legal immigration system is, the more people will try to come to the border as the only means of entry.

This notion that the President has all the authority, not to mention the resources, that he needs to solve all the issues at the border with a stroke of his pen is a fantasy.

Congress must work together to provide the legal tools and the resources necessary to address the border crisis.

I know that there are Democrats willing to put in the hard work, but we have yet to find any House Republicans who are willing to do so. This amendment is as unserious as the underlying bill. I will oppose both, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, this bill is more cheap talk from Republicans. Nothing in this bill makes a single officer safer or invests a single dollar in officer wellness.

This legislation falls far short of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which would invest in better data collection and reporting by requiring law enforcement agencies to report uses of force by or against law enforcement officers as a condition of the receipt of certain grants.

House Republicans are, again, refusing to work with police and the organizations that represent the police to pass meaningful legislation. This legislation is a missed opportunity. It calls for a report that duplicates existing reporting requirements.

It falls far short of meaningful progress in officer safety, and it represents an enormous step backward from the legislation offered by the Democratic majority in the 117th Congress.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation so that we can work together on bipartisan legislation that will really enhance the safety of our officers and our communities.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues like to talk a big game when it comes to immigration and border security. They have a long list of grievances against the Biden administration and a lot of tough talk about what should be done, but when it actually comes to doing something about it, doing the hard work of legislating and finding meaningful solutions to real problems, that is where they come up short.

Instead, they resort to bringing up completely meaningless nonbinding resolutions that allow them to shake their fists and to demonize immigrants for a little while, accomplishing absolutely nothing.

They can't even manage to bring up a simple resolution honoring law enforcement officers during Police Week. They have to turn everything into a broadside against the Biden administration and an excuse to play politics on immigration.

For the fourth time in 5 months, Republicans are bringing forth an empty resolution that will do absolutely nothing to address the situation at the border or to repair our broken immigration system.

They have completely given up on developing solutions because Donald Trump told them that he wanted to preserve the issue for the upcoming election. He wanted the issue, and he did not want them to solve the problem, so they walked away from a bipartisan deal negotiated by one of the most conservative Members of the Senate.

Instead, all they have to offer is meaningless resolution after meaningless resolution, each one a useless rehash of the last.

Like the others, this one recycles misleading statistics and constructs a false narrative while accomplishing nothing. That would be bad enough, but it also includes language that is false and downright offensive, such as, ``Democrat elected officials prioritize illegal alien criminals over citizens and legal residents of the United States.'' That is an outrageous assertion that is beneath the dignity of this House. We can have honest debates about policy, but questioning our loyalty to the American people is a disgusting slander and should be an embarrassment to anyone who supports this resolution.

Madam Speaker, we know that the best way to secure the border is to expand legal pathways and to adequately fund the immigration system. We have not updated our legal immigration system in 30 years. The more broken the legal immigration system is, the more people will try to come to the border as the only means of entry.

Because Republicans refuse to support President Biden's supplemental funding request, we don't have the resources we need to secure the border and to provide additional support for communities receiving migrants.

We need more Border Patrol agents, more immigration judges, and more asylum officers so that asylum cases can be heard in weeks, not years. The Republicans talk about catch and release, but that is because the asylum cases take years. If we funded what the President requested for more immigration judges, more asylum officers, not to mention more Border Patrol agents, asylum cases would be heard in weeks, not years, and you wouldn't have this catch and release problem.

We need more CBP officers and new detection technology to counter fentanyl. We need to modernize our ports of entry to combat the smuggling of people and drugs. Unfortunately, when it comes to providing the resources necessary to address these critical needs, Republicans have consistently voted ``no.'' If there is a nonbinding resolution full of demagoguery and fearmongering, then they are the first in line to support it.

Madam Speaker, we can do better. We must do better.

I urge Members to oppose this resolution, 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, I am ready to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard about the Senate bill, that it wasn't strong enough. It was strong enough so that Senator McConnell supported it. Senator Lankford, one of the most conservative Senators in the Senate, supported it.

It was going to pass until President Trump said: I don't want this problem solved. I want an issue for the election.

Then suddenly it was stopped.

Then we are told about H.R. 2. H.R. 2 was such a terrible bill that it couldn't get more than 32 votes in the Senate, a Senate with 49 Republican Senators. So don't tell me about H.R. 2.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is cloaked in language ostensibly honoring law enforcement, but it is really just another excuse for Republicans to play politics with the southern border and to sound tough without actually doing anything. I am glad that the kind of thing they are talking about doing isn't being done.

They say: Turn back to President Trump.

President Trump separated thousands of children from their parents, little children, many whom even today cannot be identified and returned to their parents. I don't think this country wants a return to that kind of policy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this pointless resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York, the Honorable Timothy M. Kennedy, be permitted to take the oath of office today.

His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Mr. Speaker, as dean of the New York delegation, it is my distinct honor to rise today to introduce Congressman-elect Tim Kennedy.

I can think of no better person to represent New York's 26th Congressional District and succeed our friend Brian Higgins than Tim Kennedy. As a lifelong resident of Buffalo who grew up in a blue-collar family, Tim embodies the values of hard work, family, and fighting for the little guy that makes western New York so great.

As a New York State senator for over 13 years, Tim has been a formidable advocate for our region. As chair of the New York Senate Transportation Committee, he secured a historic $100 million for the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, helped deliver record investment for our roads and transportation networks, and spearheaded legislation enhancing transportation safety and accountability.

Beyond transportation, Tim has been a long-time champion for western New York's workforce and economic development, which is evidenced through his support for the Northland Workforce Center and the revitalization of Buffalo's iconic Central Terminal.

As he steps into his new role, I speak on behalf of the entire New York congressional delegation, and we are confident that Tim Kennedy will continue to fight tirelessly for the prosperity and safety of our community.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Kennedy), our newest Member.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Dr. Benjamin Talus for nearly three years of outstanding service to the constituents of New York's 12th Congressional District.

Ben's career in the Capitol began as a House Page in 2009, where he was one of the last Pages to serve the House. A native of the Philadelphia suburbs, Ben's career has taken him far and wide, providing him with diverse experiences that helped cultivate his sound political judgment I have come to rely on daily

Ben returned to DC in 2010 to pursue his bachelor's degree in foreign service at Georgetown University. In 2013, he interned for Hillary Clinton as she transitioned out of her role as Secretary of State and back into private life. This experience earned him a communications role with the Clinton Foundation following his graduation in 2014. In this role, he staffed former President Bill Clinton, riding alongside the Secret Service at events across the country.

Directly advising one of the most powerful women in the world wasn't the most rewarding part of his tenure at the Foundation, however. It was where Ben met his future wife, Allie Gottlieb. Together, they went on to move to Miami where they worked together to send former HHS Secretary Donna Shalala to Congress.

After Congresswoman Shalala's victory in 2019, they relocated back to Washington, where Ben served as Senior Policy Advisor until 2021, when he joined my team as my Foreign Policy Advisor.

Ben dutifully supported my role as the most senior Jewish Member of Congress, advising not only myself, but also other Members looking to his foreign policy expertise. In the wake of the Israel-Hamas war, Ben has been working around the clock, fielding calls from other Members, stakeholder groups, and myself as we work to respond to the crisis. Ben's deep, complex understanding of the Jewish community and my district have been indispensable, and I could not be more grateful to have had him by my side during this difficult time.

Ben's time in my office was marked several personal milestones--he married Allie, earned both a master's and a doctoral degree in international relations from Johns Hopkins, and adopted Teddy, his Lagotto Romagnolo puppy that is often the topic of office discussion.

While his departure will be a profound loss for the House and my team, I'm pleased he won't be going far as he is moving to New York for his next chapter in the private sector. I look forward to seeing all he will accomplish, and most importantly, seeing Teddy enjoy Central Park as Ben practices his agogo in the meadow.

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

Mr. Speaker, this country is facing real problems. There is an erosion of trust in our government and institutions.

The right to bodily autonomy is under attack across the Nation. The State of Maryland needs assistance in rebuilding the Francis Scott Key Bridge so that the Port of Baltimore, whose economic impact touches communities across the country, can reopen. Our immigration system cannot function because Congress has failed to reform it for over 30 years.

Instead of responding to these problems, House Republicans are wasting our time, yet again, on another meaningless immigration resolution.

At Donald Trump's direction, they refuse to work toward solutions for our broken immigration system, so instead, all they have to offer is a bunch of empty rhetoric.

This resolution, like the others we have considered in recent months, will do nothing to solve the situation at the border.

Not a single dollar will go to help our law enforcement agents at the border as a result of this resolution.

Not a single person will be denied unlawful entry to this country as a result of this resolution. Not a single community will be made safer as a result of this resolution.

This resolution is nothing more than a highlight reel of the dubious talking points of immigration that we have heard over and over from Republicans since President Biden was sworn into office.

It is the same legislating by press release that we have become accustomed to in this historically unproductive Congress.

The resolution itself is simply a rehash of the resolution we passed a few weeks ago. Republicans are so out of ideas that it even has the same exact title and much of the same content as the last resolution.

That resolution listed all the ways that President Biden supposedly could secure the border and essentially asks the administration to reverse every policy it has implemented on immigration, even though we know that doing so would not be effective.

Today's resolution simply lists most of those policies again, and this time it just condemns the administration. What a waste of time.

It is important to remember how we got here. Earlier this Congress, House Republicans passed their partisan, cruel, and unworkable border bill, H.R. 2.

Republicans spent a year saying that H.R. 2 is the only way to secure the border, even though they know that it cannot become law, having failed twice to pass the Senate, receiving just 32 votes earlier this year.

Then they insisted that the price of helping to protect Ukraine against Russian aggression was enacting harsh border enforcement legislation.

Senate Republicans even managed to convince some Democrats to agree on a very harsh 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 actually help at the border in an election year because he wants immigration as a campaign issue. Other Republicans quickly agreed.

Folding to the cult of Donald Trump, 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 really help address our broken immigration system. They clearly have given up.

Instead of solving the problem, Republicans merely want to continue to weaponize the border as a political issue for the election year with pointless votes on meaningless resolutions that accomplish nothing and are full of misleading information.

Let's review the facts once again. The resolution complains that the Biden administration is not removing enough people.

However, the administration is removing people at a very significant pace and in ways that I am concerned may present some due process violations.

Since the end of title 42 last May, the Biden administration has removed or returned over 630,000 individuals and members of family units, just since last May.

This is more than the number of people removed or returned in all of fiscal year 2019 under the Trump administration.

The resolution also alleges that the Biden administration is violating the mandatory detention statutes by not detaining enough people.

However, no administration, including the Trump administration, has ever been able to comply with those statutes because no Congress has ever appropriated the extraordinary levels of funding such compliance would require.

To detain everyone that the law requires to be held in mandatory detention would require Congress to appropriate over $35 billion a year, a number 10 times higher than what Congress appropriated this year or then-President Trump ever requested for detention.

When Democrats have proposed giving DHS the resources it needs to do its job, the Republicans have consistently said ``no''.

We need to work together to address our broken immigration system. Enforcement alone cannot fix it. We know this because an enforcement- only approach has largely failed for three decades.

We need to update our immigration system so that it meets the needs of our country. We need a balanced, bipartisan approach that expands lawful pathways.

This will help relieve pressure on the border and allow people to come to this country in an orderly and efficient way, but Republicans don't want to engage in real legislating that might actually solve problems and deliver meaningful reform.

They want to continue to demagogue and fearmonger with meaningless resolutions containing nothing but empty rhetoric designed to score cheap political points.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman of three things that he seems to have forgotten.

One, just since the end of title 42 last May, the Biden administration has removed or returned over 630,000 individuals and members of family units.

This is more than the number of people removed or returned in all of fiscal year 2019 under the Trump administration.

I would also remind the gentleman that this legislation does nothing. It simply denounces the Biden administration. It does nothing. It has no operable clause. It is pure propaganda for political reasons. It does nothing to solve the immigration problem.

Third, I would remind the gentleman that the Senate negotiated a very strong immigration bill approved by Senator Lankford, the second-most conservative Member of the Senate. Mitch McConnell said it was the strongest immigration bill he had ever seen. The Senate was willing to pass it until former President Trump said, don't pass it because I would rather have an election issue than solve the problem.

The fault for the immigration problem now is President Trump's for preventing the Senate from passing that bill and the Republicans' fault for going along with him politically.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

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

All the Members on the other side forget several things. They forget that we had the strongest border bill that might have gone a long way toward solving this problem that the Senate was willing to pass, but President Trump said don't pass. He said in so many words: I don't want a solution; I want a campaign issue.

They forget that the President has asked for a lot more money so that instead of someone coming in and claiming asylum--maybe he deserves it; maybe he doesn't--and getting a date in court 5 years later and then disappearing, you would have enough judges to give him a date in a couple of weeks and either grant him asylum if he is entitled to it or deport him swiftly if he is not entitled to it.

The Republicans won't vote the money and they won't vote the bill that would solve or go a long way toward solving the problem.

They also forget that this resolution doesn't do anything. All it does is denounce Biden. That is all they have for this Congress, resolution after resolution denouncing Biden, and H.R. 2, which is so impossible that it got only 32 votes in the Senate, a Senate where there are 49 Republican Senators.

They don't want to solve the problem. They just want to talk about it. That is all they are doing about it now. It is total nonsense and not worthy of the time of this body.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentlemen and gentlewomen on the other side of the aisle that when you talk about various victims of migrant crime, the FBI statistics show that the percentage of crime committed by migrants is lower than the percentage of crime committed by native-born Americans. Migrants, legal and illegal, seem to be more law-abiding, on average, than native-born Americans. So, to use a specific example to say that this is the fault of the immigration policy is nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, whatever complaints House Republicans may have with the Biden administration's immigration policies, this resolution will do absolutely nothing to address them.

They have had plenty of opportunities to work with Democrats on bipartisan solutions to reform our broken immigration system, and they have walked away time and again. Most recently, they rejected a bipartisan border deal negotiated by one of the most conservative Republicans in the Senate because Donald Trump told them to. He and they would rather preserve the issue for the upcoming election than actually work to solve problems.

So, here we are again, for the third time already this year, with a meaningless, nonbinding resolution that talks tough and accomplishes nothing. What better way to sum up this Republican Congress?

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this meaningless resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I devoted much of my life to combating anti-Semitism, and I am as attuned as anyone to threats and bigotry aimed at Jewish people. I will take lectures from no one about the need for vigorous efforts to fight anti-Semitism on campus or anywhere else.

I am also a deeply committed Zionist who firmly believes in Israel's right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people. However, as someone who is also a longtime champion of protecting freedom of speech, I must oppose this misguided bill.

While there is much in the bill I agree with, its core provision would put a thumb on the scale in favor of

one particular definition of anti-Semitism to the exclusion of all others, to be used when the Department of Education assesses claims of anti-Semitism on campus.

This definition adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, includes ``contemporary examples of anti-Semitism.'' The problem is that these examples may include protected speech in some contexts, particularly with respect to criticism of the State of Israel.

To be clear, I vehemently disagree with the sentiments toward Israel expressed in those examples, and too often criticism of Israel does, in fact, take the form of virulent anti-Semitism.

Many Jewish students no longer feel safe on campus, and some colleges have not done nearly enough to protect them. However, while this definition and its examples may have useful applications in certain contexts, by effectively codifying them into title VI, this bill threatens to chill constitutionally protected speech. Speech that is critical of Israel alone does not constitute unlawful discrimination. By encompassing purely political speech about Israel into title VI's ambit, the bill sweeps too broadly.

As the ACLU notes, if this legislation were to become law, colleges and universities that want to avoid title VI investigations or the potential loss of Federal funding could end up suppressing protected speech that is criticizing Israel or supporting Palestinians.

Moreover, it could result in students and faculty self-censoring their political speech. Even the IHRA definition's lead author, Kenneth Stern, opposes codifying the definition that he wrote, the IHRA definition, for this reason.

Vigorous enforcement of the Federal civil rights law does not depend on defining terms like ``anti-Semitism'' or ``racism.'' In fact, codifying one definition of anti-Semitism to the exclusion of all other possible definitions could actually undermine Federal civil rights law because anti-Semitism, like other forms of bigotry, evolves over time, and future conduct that comes to be widely understood as anti-Semitic may no longer meet the statutory definition.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot ignore the context in which this legislation is being rushed to the floor in a cynical attempt to exploit, for political gain, the deep divisions currently on display at college campuses across the country.

Much of this activity, whether you agree with the sentiments expressed at these protests or not, constitutes legally protected speech and expression. Some participants, shamefully, have exhibited anti-Semitic conduct, and the Department of Education will rightfully investigate them, consulting the IHRA definition and other relevant definitions in the process. They do not need this legislation to help them with their inquiries.

Some students have even crossed the line into vandalism, destruction of private property, and willful disruption of campus life. They too will face legal consequences, and nothing in this bill will affect that. There is no excuse for bigotry, threats, or violence directed at anyone, anywhere, and it is imperative that we confront the scourge of anti-Semitism. Congress can help, but this legislation is not the answer.

Instead of engaging in political theatrics that do not do anything concrete to stop anti-Semitism on campus, we need to put our money where our mouth is. Last year, the Biden administration outlined a comprehensive national strategy to counter anti-Semitism, the cornerstone of which was increasing enforcement actions by the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education.

President Biden's budget called for a 27 percent increase in funding for that office. If my Republican colleagues are serious about fighting anti-Semitism, they would have fully funded that request. Instead, they bragged about proposing to slash funding by 25 percent, funding to enforce the laws against anti-Semitism on campus. They bragged about proposing to slash funding by 25 percent and ultimately insisted that funding be kept flat despite the marked increase in anti-Semitism complaints. If my Republican colleagues are serious about anti- Semitism, we would be considering legislation to codify the national strategy today instead of fiddling with definitions.

If my Republican colleagues were serious about anti-Semitism, they would have spoken up after neo-Nazis in Charlottesville chanted: ``Jews will not replace us.''

If my Republican colleagues were serious about anti-Semitism, they would have spoken up when President Trump declared that there were ``very fine people on both sides'' of that rally.

Additionally, just last week, former President Trump downplayed what happened in Charlottesville, calling it a ``peanut'' compared to recent campus protests of the Israel-Gaza war, and we heard crickets from the Republicans.

We hear nothing from our Republican colleagues when some conservatives repeated anti-Semitic tropes about George Soros or others.

I say to my Republican friends: For too long, your selective silence on these matters has been deafening. If you mean what you say here today and if you believe that the threats and vitriol that Jewish students face on college campuses is unjust and that combatting anti- Semitism is more than a convenient talking point in your politically motivated crusade against institutions of higher education, then I beseech you: Please move beyond pointless gestures and posturing and actually help us protect Jewish students. Fully fund the administration's efforts to counter anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination. Our Nation's students deserve no less.

By contrast, this legislation threatens freedom of speech, one of our most cherished values, while doing nothing to combat anti-Semitism.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge Members to oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's remarks are slanderous.

First of all, the bill that I cosponsored 2 years ago was a different bill. It did not exclude--let me read from this bill: ``The use of alternative definitions of anti-Semitism impairs enforcement efforts by adding multiple standards and may fail to identify many of the modern manifestations of anti-Semitism.''

That is nonsense, and it was not in the bill that was, I think, about 7 or 8 years ago. The two bills are different.

Second, I oppose this bill because it infringes on freedom of speech, and there are Jewish groups, such as Reconstructionist Judaism, J Street and T'ruah that oppose this bill for the same reason, and they are not anti-Semitic. There are Jewish groups that support the bill. There are Jewish groups that oppose the bill.

I have been a supporter of Israel and of Zionism, and an opponent of anti-Semitism all my life. I have been active in Zionist organizations ever since I was in high school, and to say that anyone who votes against this bill is supporting anti-Semitism is a disgrace.

There are differences of opinion that occur on this floor from time to time, honest differences. Someone who opposes this bill may think that it infringes on freedom of speech. Someone who opposes this bill may note that the author of the IHRA definition that this would enshrine in law said don't codify it. The author, Kenneth Stern, said this is a good working definition that may indicate anti-Semitism. So are the other two, but it should not be codified into law because that could make, depending on the circumstances, free speech illegal. The author of the IHRA definition said that.

There may be legitimate differences of opinion between those who support this bill and those who oppose this bill, but to say that anyone who opposes this bill supports anti-Semitism is a disgraceful slander.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

Mr. Speaker, every bit of conduct that Mr. Molinaro described is loathsome, as he says, but that does not mean that we ought to pass a bill that threatens freedom of speech.

This bill will do nothing to help stamp out anti-Semitism on campuses or anywhere else, but it will threaten free speech for the reasons I stated before.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee.

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

Again, anti-Semitism is a terrible thing. Hamas is a genocidal organization which wants to kill all Jews, not just the State of Israel. There is no question about that. There is no question we have to fight anti-Semitism. There is no question the Manning bill is a good step in that direction. There is no question we ought to give the Office for Civil Rights the 25 percent increase the President has requested to enforce title VI on college campuses where there has been no question there has been vile anti-Semitism.

That, however, does not mean we should pass this bill. This bill enshrines the IHRA definition, and I would remind you that the IHRA definition's chief author, Kenneth Stern said: Don't codify it in law because if codified into law, it would be destructive of free speech. The author of the IHRA definition said that.

The bill also specifically excludes the Jerusalem and Nexus definitions. There is no good reason for that. All three definitions give examples of things that may be seen as anti-Semitism, that may indicate anti-Semitism. None of them should be codified into law, as this bill would do for one of them.

I don't know why one and not the other two, but this bill would enshrine one of them into law against the will of its own author, who said this is my best definition, but don't enshrine it into law, or, rather, don't codify it into law because if it is made law, it could infringe free expression, and that is why not only the ACLU, but J Street, T'ruah, the Reconstructionist Jewish Movement, and a dozen other Jewish groups oppose this law, not because they support anti- Semitism--they obviously don't--but because they both oppose anti- Semitism and support freedom of speech, and those of us who oppose anti-Semitism and support freedom of speech ought to vote ``no'' on this bill.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support meaningful action to combat anti- Semitism. Unfortunately, that is not the legislation before us. We risk threatening freedom of speech while providing no new tools that the Department of Education does not already have to investigate claims of anti-Semitism.

The White House has developed a strong blueprint for countering anti- Semitism, and there is already legislation to implement these policies. We should be working together to pass that legislation and to provide our civil rights enforcement agencies with the resources they need to address anti-Semitism wherever it occurs.

This legislation is a distraction from the important work ahead of us to protect our students and all those who face discrimination. Not only is it a distraction, but it also threatens freedom of speech.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the tremendous accomplishments of Kevin O'Keefe, a dedicated community leader in East Midtown Manhattan.

Kevin has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to our community through his roles as the founder and president of the St. Vartan Park Conservancy, the president of the Manhattan East Community Association, a member of Manhattan Community Board 6, a trustee of the Murray Hill Neighborhood Association, a board member of the Stuyvesant Cove Park Association, an advisory board member of the Village Trip, a coach, an entrepreneur, a writer, a husband, and a father.

In these roles, Kevin has led multiple initiatives to increase the quality of life in East Midtown. In 2019, he led a major advocacy campaign to reopen an East Midtown garden and lawn after decades of closure. Since then, thousands of individuals have enjoyed their time inside the now-public green space.

As a member of Manhattan Community Board 6, Kevin led an initiative for members of the public to make presentations to the board to better understand community needs. In this capacity, he also serves as a committee chair and member of the Youth and Education Committee and Health and Human Services Committee.

Furthermore, Kevin's commitment extends to youth sports and education. He is a former all-American athlete who volunteers as a sports coach, heading the track and field program at a local East Midtown school and running ``Swish You Were Here,'' a community basketball net-replacement initiative.

Kevin is also an entrepreneur and accomplished writer. He is the author of the nonfiction bestseller The Average American, which follows O'Keefe's journey to find the nation's most statistically average person. The book has inspired many people to find a middle ground when talking with those with differing views and has earned accolades from former President Barack Obama. In his professional life, he has led New York Sports Tours and other prominent brands and companies.

On April 25, 2023, Kevin was honored at the Samuel J. Tilden Democratic Club's 70th anniversary gala with the Platinum Anniversary Award for Distinguished Service.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect and admiration that we recognize Kevin O'Keefe for his outstanding service and leadership. His dedication not only enhances the vibrancy of East Midtown but also sets a commendable example of civic engagement and community spirit. We are grateful for his contributions and proud to count him as a distinguished member of our community.

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

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Suozzi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

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, 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

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

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.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4639, the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act. I was proud to join Congressman Davidson in introducing this strong bipartisan legislation to help prevent government overreach by prohibiting the warrantless purchase of customer data. When the Judiciary Committee considered this bill at markup last July, it received, as Ms. Hageman noted, a rare unanimous 30-0 vote.

When we download applications to our phones, we do so because we think they will make our lives just a little bit better. Weather apps tell us if we should bring an umbrella to work, delivery apps allow us to order groceries to our homes, and even employee work apps let us know the schedule for the week. Some of these convenience applications, however, can come with a dark side that they generally do not disclose to the American public, that the data they collect from us is immediately sold to the highest bidder.

Third-party purchasers of this data, often referred to as ``data brokers,'' collect and package the data to sell to advertisers, market researchers, and government entities, to name a few. While many argue that the data they purchase from applications, websites, and social media is deidentified when it is sold, experts agree that just four points of data are needed to reidentify this data.

Because of this, the purchaser of a dataset can piece together significant information about us. For example, they can track an individual's commuting habits, including which businesses they drive by on their way to work, when they are not at home, and even when they visit places that are not part of their normal commute.

That anyone should have Americans' private information is highly troubling to me. But that our Federal Government can obtain it without a warrant should be troubling to all of us.

The Supreme Court in U.S. v. Jones unanimously found that the government's use of a GPS tracker on the subject's car is considered a search under the Fourth Amendment. But in 2004, when the search in Jones occurred, not everyone had a phone in their pocket--the ecosystem of data brokers had not yet come to life.

If the government wants to track a suspect today, they can go through the trouble of establishing probable cause in getting a warrant, which is what they should do, or Federal law enforcement could simply purchase data from a third party about the target of their operation.

If that purchased data included location data for their subject, they would have no need for checks and balances, no need for a warrant, and during an ensuing criminal trial, no obligation even to tell the court how they obtained the initial data in the first place.

We have the Fourth Amendment for a reason. If law enforcement wants to gather information about you, they should first obtain a warrant. They should have to go to a judge and explain why there is probable cause and why they need to know this information. When Federal law enforcement agencies purchase this data, however, they bypass our judicial system entirely.

Our current state of affairs is clearly not what our Founders intended. Our right to privacy is being abrogated every day by those whose job it is to keep us safe. The Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act would change that.

Under the bill before us today, the Federal Government would be prohibited from exchanging anything of value for data from third-party vendors. The law already prohibits applications and websites, electronic communication services, and remote computing services from sharing information with the government without a warrant.

The Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act would extend that same rule to the data brokers to which they sell. This legislation would also ensure that the government does not circumvent these rules by prohibiting both indirect acquisition of information and agency sharing of third-party data.

This way, Federal law enforcement could neither acquire prohibited data from individuals who purchase the data and then pass it on to the government, nor could they receive the desired data from non-law enforcement Federal agencies.

The whole point of this bill is to stop the end run that is being done around the Fourth Amendment because of modern technology.

I thank Congressman Davidson and Chairman Jordan for their leadership, and I thank my Democratic colleagues, Representatives Lofgren, Jayapal, and Jacobs for their hard work to get the bill to the floor.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs).

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, data brokers collect massive amounts of information about Americans that can track and identify our most intimate details. It is bad enough that companies have access to all this personal data, but now the government can access this data, too, without securing a warrant just by purchasing it on the open market. This amounts to an end run around the Fourth Amendment.

This legislation would end this practice and protect our privacy as the Constitution demands.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment makes technical changes to the bill to clarify that it does not interfere with section 702 of FISA. FISA, including but not limited to section 702, is the only way the government should acquire data that in any other scenario would need a warrant. While we may have different opinions on how the government should treat the incidentally collected U.S. person data, as we debated last week, we should all agree that this bill is not intended to address or affect section 702 in any way.

This amendment is a technical change to correct a minor error in the bill, and I hope that all Members will support it.

I thank my colleague for offering the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment will clarify that the underlying bill will not impact information that is publicly available, that the government has in its own databases, or that the government lawfully acquires. Scraping pictures and data off public social media accounts for facial recognition technology is certainly a problem, but it is not this problem.

It does us no good to conflate one surveillance issue with another. This legislation is intended to prohibit the purchase of data in cases where Federal law enforcement would otherwise need a warrant. License plate databases, facial recognition technology platforms, and advanced policing technologies are often powered by publicly available data.

We are not here to impede government access to data that is public or that law enforcement already contains in its databases. While I have serious concerns about the irresponsible deployment of advanced policing technologies, those are fights for another day.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his amendment. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would create exceptions for government purchase of data that a Federal agency can already lawfully access without a warrant. I am sure that my colleague from New York means well, but I worry that this amendment would create confusion in the long run rather than clarify an area where we both agree.

I agree that the government should continue accessing information that it is already able to acquire without a warrant, but we should be closing the door on government purchase of third-party data, period.

First, it is unclear how a data broker subscription for ``only information that law enforcement could acquire without a warrant'' would work. By suggesting that some data could be purchased, we open up a Pandora's box of hypotheticals instead of turning off a tap that should not be on to begin with.

Second, when section 2703 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act was passed back in 1986, the internet was in its nascency. At that time, there were few, if any, data brokers purchasing data and selling it to the government. I am confident that if they had existed, then third parties' data sales would have been included in the prohibition against service providers sharing their data with the government without a warrant.

As I said, I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, but I cannot agree with this approach.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

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

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. We all support the police and criminal investigations, but we all support, we hope, the Fourth Amendment, the requirement to get a warrant for probable cause in order to search something or somebody.

This bill is to avoid an end run around that by the government purchasing information from data brokers for which they should need a warrant. This amendment would gut that and destroy the whole purpose of the bill.

The bill is essential to protecting liberty and to protecting the protections of the Fourth Amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of meaningful reform to FISA section 702 and in strong opposition to a mere fig leaf or, even worse, an expansion of 702. Unfortunately, we will not know which of these paths we are taking until the conclusion of this debate.

What I know at this moment is that the base text before us right now is completely inadequate. Although it has some perfectly fine provisions, it does not represent real reform. Some of the proposed amendments that will be coming up today would take us in the wrong direction, and changing the sunset from 5 years to 2 years does absolutely nothing to improve the bill.

Ultimately, this legislation should only move forward if it contains an amendment to mandate that the intelligence community obtain a probable cause warrant before they search the 702 database for Americans' private communications.

Some of my colleagues appear confused about how 702 collection works and what we mean when supporters of a warrant requirement refer to ``backdoor searches'' for U.S. person information. Let's be clear about what we are talking about.

FISA section 702 permits the intelligence community to sweep up the communication of foreign targets located overseas. When these communications are obtained, they go into what is known as a 702 database where all the 702 data is housed.

If the U.S. Government wants to target a U.S. person for foreign surveillance, U.S. person meaning an American or legal permanent resident, they already can. They do this by getting a warrant under title I of FISA, a separate and distinct part of FISA from section 702. The government cannot target Americans under 702 because 702 does not protect the constitutional rights of the targets of the surveillance. Foreigners not located on U.S. soil do not have constitutional rights, so this is not a problem.

What is a problem, however, is that massive amounts of Americans' communications are still swept up in 702 searches. If a U.S. person communicates with a foreign target, that American's communications with the target end up in the 702 database, too. While we do not know precise numbers, we know that a vast amount of Americans' communications is swept up every year.

The intelligence community is not supposed to search the 702 database for U.S. person identifiers, like our names, phone numbers, and addresses without cause. Searching for Americans' private communications in the 702 database, communications the government otherwise would not have access to without a warrant, is the constitutional equivalent of conducting a warrantless search.

We know that the government breaks this law all the time--278,000 times, in fact, at last count in 2021 alone. Officials are supposed to find it reasonably likely that a query will turn up evidence of a crime or foreign intelligence information, but that did not stop them from searching for protesters, politicians, and political donors, to name a few, without proper predicate.

Because of these repeated violations, Chairman Jordan and I agree that the only way to preserve Americans' privacy and constitutional rights is to require the intelligence community to obtain a probable cause warrant when they want to search the communications of Americans housed in the 702 database. This is a basic tenet of the Fourth Amendment.

Now, Chairman Turner stated incorrectly that the proposed warrant requirement gives constitutional rights to suspected terrorists abroad. Nonsense. The warrant requirement does not change any aspect of surveillance of valid targets under section 702, nor should it. The problem is that when we surveil the internet, we sweep up massive amounts of U.S. person information, and the warrant requirement we propose would apply the Fourth Amendment to that information--nothing more, and our Constitution demands nothing less.

We have repeatedly heard some of our colleagues tell us that the sky is falling; that a probable cause requirement would end U.S. person searches of the 702 database, but there are no facts to back up these claims.

We will be considering an amendment today to add a warrant requirement for U.S. person searches of the 702 database. This essential amendment makes exceptions for victim consent, cybersecurity cases, and exigencies, that is, emergencies. Thus, the vast majority of these searches can continue without a warrant, but for the small percentage of searches of Americans' communications that would be affected, the government should have probable cause to search their communications.

It is simply unfair to ask the intelligence community to both zealously protect our security while also protecting the constitutional rights of those surveilled. America's system of checks and balances exist precisely for cases such as this, where two considerations must coexist at odds with one another.

For too long, FISA section 702 has enabled the surveillance of Americans without adequate safeguards to protect our civil liberties. Americans need Congress to enact these guardrails, and with section 702 expiring soon, we have a rare opportunity to protect Americans' privacy while giving enforcement the tools they need to keep us safe.

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation unless a probable cause warrant is adopted, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the ranking member of the Crime and

Federal Government Surveillance Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

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

Mr. Chair, the suggestion has been made that the warrant requirement is extreme. Let's be clear: There is nothing extreme about this idea.

Over a decade ago, a group of intelligence experts convened by President Obama unanimously recommended requiring a warrant for U.S. person queries of section 702 data. That group included Michael Morell, former Acting Director of the CIA and Richard Clarke, former Chief Counterterrorism Adviser to President George W. Bush.

These top national security officials understood that we can protect national security while respecting the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans.

The House of Representatives has twice passed amendments with a warrant requirement for backdoor searches by large bipartisan majorities. Some of my colleagues who spoke against this amendment today, including former Speaker Pelosi, have voted more than once for this reform.

Over 75 percent of Americans support this reform. Calling something extreme doesn't make it extreme, and this is an idea that has been in the mainstream for over a decade.

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

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

Chairman Jordan and I agree on very little, but we are united in our belief that adding a warrant requirement to section 702 is absolutely necessary before we consider supporting reauthorization of these authorities.

I will reserve judgment on final passage of this bill until we see what amendments pass, but I urge Members to join us in supporting real reform. Real reform means, at the minimum, the warrant requirement to give effect to Americans' constitutional rights.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this absolutely essential amendment.

In 2021, the intelligence community conducted over 278,000 inappropriate searches of Americans' private communications. They broke the law more than 278,000 times.

Mr. Biggs and I do not agree on much, but we agree that the status quo is unacceptable. Without a probable cause warrant requirement, it is clear that the intelligence community will go on breaking the law and violating Americans' rights in the process.

As I have said again and again, if the government wants to peruse the private communications of Americans, they can go to title I of FISA. Section 702 has fewer privacy protections because it is meant for foreigners located overseas--people who do not have constitutional rights.

Any Americans' data we collect under 702 is collected at a standard far below the Fourth Amendment, and that should not be.

I strongly support this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes.''