Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, this country is facing real problems. The right to bodily autonomy is under attack across the Nation. There was a school shooting just 4 days into the new year, leading to the tragic death of an 11-year-old and the injury of 7 others.

Our immigration system cannot function because Congress has failed to reform it for over 30 years, and Republican hard-liners are threatening to shut down the government if we don't ``shut down the border.''

House Republicans are not working to respond to any of these problems as they are too busy fighting among themselves. Their historic dysfunction has even prompted multiple Members of their Conference to complain that they have nothing to campaign on.

Today's resolution is not going to help. This resolution will do nothing to solve the situation at the border. It proposes no solutions of any kind. In fact, this resolution is nothing more than a highlight reel of the Republican talking points on immigration that we have heard over and over from Republicans since President Biden was sworn into office.

Let me say once again: The border is not open. The Biden administration has been removing people at a record clip over the last few months, restricting asylum with a new regulation, and placing thousands of families in expedited removal.

Since the end of title 42 last May, the Biden administration has removed or returned nearly a half million individuals. That is more than the number of people removed in all of fiscal year 2019 under the Trump administration.

However, because President Biden isn't saying that he wants to shoot migrants trying to cross the border, like Governors Abbott and DeSantis have, Republicans don't think he is doing enough.

Further, despite my colleagues' claims, fentanyl is largely not coming into this country between ports of entry. More than 90 percent of fentanyl interdicted is stopped at ports of entry where cartels attempted to smuggle it in through primarily vehicles driven by American citizens.

I am not sure how anyone can say the border is open.

On top of this, at every turn, Republicans have voted against giving the administration the resources it needs to do its job. Nearly every current House Republican voted against the bipartisan infrastructure deal in the fiscal year 2023 omnibus.

Both of these bills provided significant additional funding to increase staffing and modernize ports of entry to combat the smuggling of people and drugs.

We need to work together to address our broken immigration system. Right now we have a system where many, many people come into this country, present themselves to Border Patrol or not. They are apprehended. They claim asylum under our law. They are entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge, but because we don't have enough asylum officers and immigration judges, their case isn't heard for

years, so they are told to come back in 4 years or whatever for their hearing, and the Republicans call this catch and release.

If the Biden administration's proposals for funding for more border guards, more CBP people, more asylum and immigration judges would be approved, then these claims could be adjudicated in a matter of weeks, not years. Those entitled to asylum would be granted it in weeks and would be permitted to work, and those not entitled to it would be swiftly deported.

However, due to the lack of resources caused by Republican insistence on voting against those resources, this doesn't happen, and we have the catch and release system and millions of people staying in this country when they shouldn't entirely because of the Republicans, and then they say it is President Biden's open border policy.

We need to work together to address our broken immigration system. Unfortunately, House Republicans insist they will only consider H.R. 2, their fantasy, draconian, enforcement-only bill which stands no chance of passage in the Senate.

Real solutions require compromise, but MAGA Republicans aren't interested in compromise. What they are interested in is passing bills like the one before us today. I should say resolutions. This is not a bill.

This resolution is nothing but empty rhetoric designed to score cheap political points that bring us no closer to meaningful reform.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I hope we can get to serious work, but meanwhile, we should oppose this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the reason the gentleman from Arizona couldn't find any Border Patrol agents is because Republicans have refused to vote the appropriations to greatly increase the number of Border Patrol agents that the Biden administration has proposed.

We know there aren't enough Border Patrol agents. The administration knows this. The administration has proposed funding for many more Border Patrol agents, but the Republicans have refused to vote for it. Then they complain that they can't find Border Patrol agents along the border.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), the ranking Democrat on the Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

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

We know from the newspapers and from talking to our colleagues in the Senate that Senate negotiators, Democrats and Republicans, are close to an agreement on a bill to provide for border security and an immigration bill.

The Speaker of the House has said that no matter what they agree to, he is not willing to look at it, that he is not willing to have this House pass any immigration bill whatsoever.

It ill behooves the Republicans to decry lack of border security when the Speaker of the House has announced that under no circumstances will they do anything about it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we need to work together to address our broken immigration system. Enforcement alone cannot fix it. We know this because that 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.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution will accomplish none of that. Instead of reaching across the aisle in search of meaningful solutions, this resolution uses empty rhetoric to score cheap political points.

This resolution doesn't claim to accomplish anything for immigration reform. All it does is condemn President Biden.

In a Congress that has broken records for its lack of accomplishments, this is just one more useless bill that does nothing to help the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 788, the so-called Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2023.

This harmful legislation would prevent the Justice Department from negotiating settlements to include payments to third parties, primarily nonprofits and community-based organizations, that are best positioned to remedy harms to society at large that were caused by a corporate wrongdoer's violation of Federal environmental, labor, consumer, and financial protections.

This bill is nothing short of a gift to large corporations that would leave victims of their misconduct out in the cold.

No credible facts justify H.R. 788. This bill is based on the false premise that the Justice Department uses these types of settlements as illegitimate favors for an administration's political allies, with the bill's supporters describing such settlements as politically motivated slush funds.

This is an outlandish attack on a perfectly legal and constitutional type of remedy and is an argument that both the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service have thoroughly debunked.

Yet, House Republicans have spent countless hours and taxpayer dollars over several Congresses, going back at least a decade, chasing the conspiracy theory that the Justice Department is attempting to fund liberal activist groups and causes through negotiated settlements.

This included a multiyear investigation of the settlements that the Justice Department entered into with several big banks following the 2008 financial crisis, banks whose greedy appetite for mortgage-backed securities led to predatory lending practices that ultimately left millions of homeowners facing foreclosure. The big banks turned a blind eye to these practices, while they packaged mortgages that they knew were of questionable value as securities and sold them to individual and institutional investors alike.

Although the big banks' illegal conduct led directly to the 2008 financial crisis, it was difficult, if not impossible, for individual borrowers or homeowners to hold them legally accountable for the harms they suffered from the bank's near implosion of the Nation's financial system.

In response, roughly 1 percent--a tiny fraction--of the settlement monies in suits brought by the government ultimately went to third- party organizations specializing in aiding private homeowners to obtain mortgage relief or other related community services--a perfectly reasonable way to help remedy the harm caused by these large financial institutions' irresponsible behavior.

Unsurprisingly, the House Republican investigation into these settlements produced not one shred of credible evidence to support their allegations that this represented some sort of improper action--a common result when it comes to the majority's oversight priorities it seems.

Nonetheless, the majority seeks to enact H.R. 788, a bill that purports to address a problem that does not exist while its proposed solution would create real negative consequences for the American public.

Were Congress to pass H.R. 788, it would reward corporate lawbreakers and further victimize the families and communities suffering from the consequences of corporate misconduct, including injuries from civil rights violations, environmental justice harms, or harms caused by fraudulent lending practices.

During the Rules Committee hearing earlier this week, my colleagues on the other side began to argue that these settlements are, in fact, a sweet deal for corporate lawbreakers at the expense of the taxpayer. Nothing could be further from reality.

First, let us not lose sight of the fact that the majority of settlement funds go to the U.S. Treasury.

Second, these settlements enable Federal agencies to efficiently resolve enforcement actions. In many of the kinds of cases from which these types of settlements arise, litigation is complex, expensive, and time consuming. It could take the government years to hold wrongdoers accountable if they are unable to reach a settlement.

Justice delayed is justice denied. These settlements save the taxpayers millions of dollars in litigation costs, boosting the value of the settlements to the U.S. Treasury beyond the listed dollar figure, while at the same time providing more immediate relief for victims of corporate lawbreaking.

H.R. 788 is simply a tired attempt by the majority to paint a constitutional veneer upon their unpopular antiregulatory agenda, which includes enacting legislation that will undermine critical financial, environmental,

public health, and safety protections for the American public.

This antiregulatory bill is a solution in search of a problem, designed to serve deep-pocketed corporate interests at the American people's expense.

It is a shame that House Republicans have chosen this unjustified and harmful bill as one of their first measures to bring to the floor in this new year. We could have started the new year by considering bipartisan legislation to address a real problem. At the same markup where the Judiciary Committee considered this bill, we also considered legislation that would have addressed bipartisan concerns about Federal civil asset forfeiture laws. That bill passed the committee by a 26-0 vote in favor, and I have no doubt we would have enjoyed strong bipartisan support on the floor.

Be that as it may, here we are, once again, at the precipice of a possible government shutdown, and House Republicans have chosen instead to waste time on H.R. 788, recycling an unnecessary bill that has no chance of passage in the Senate at a time when the House should be working expeditiously to ensure that the government stays open.

In short, rather than considering ill-conceived and harmful legislation, we ought to be devoting this first legislative week of the new year focused on serving the actual needs of the American people, which is the basic job that we were elected to do.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 788, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas and the gentlewoman from Wyoming are simply wrong as they describe the situation.

In all of these settlements, the Federal Government is given money, the bulk of the money. It doesn't go to a third-party group. A small fraction then goes to a small group to help make the victims of the fraud or the malfeasance somewhat whole, but the Federal Government gets the bulk of the funds in the first place.

It is a two-part payout. The Federal Government gets most of the funds, and then a third party helps some of the victims get a little part of the funds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Foushee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

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

My Republican friends seem to be under a misconception about the bill. They keep saying that it unconstitutionally removes money from the Treasury without appropriation. It does no such thing. It removes not a dime from the Treasury. None of this money is the government's money to start with.

The government sues some group or company for malefaction, for damaging people. A settlement is reached. Under the terms of that settlement, the bulk of the money goes to the Treasury, and there it stays. A small proportion of that money goes to an organization that attempts to make somewhat whole the victims of the corporate malfeasance that caused the lawsuit in the first place, but no money is removed from the Treasury. On the contrary, money is placed into the Treasury, money from the corporate malefactor. Some money from the corporate malefactor, a small proportion, goes to an organization that tries to help make not whole but a little better the victims of the malefaction by the corporation in the first place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I reiterate that H.R. 788 is a solution in search of a problem that if enacted would seriously hamstring the ability of Federal agencies to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable to the American public.

Given its potentially broad impact, H.R. 788 is opposed by a wide range of environmental, civil justice, labor, and consumer advocacy groups, including the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the American Federation of Teachers, Earthjustice, the Environmental Defense Fund, the League of Conservation Voters, the American Association for Justice, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, and the National Consumers League.

If the underlying practice, as my friends on the other side of the aisle say, were really such a gift to corporations, why has the Chamber of Commerce come out in favor of this bill?

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 788, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed.

Mr. Speaker, I will not take 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, for all the reasons I have stated here, this is a terrible bill. This amendment makes it no worse. Therefore, I don't oppose it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we all know why we are here today.

The majority has no accomplishments to speak of. Their own Members have said so, and the rightwing is getting restless.

So since they can't legislate and run on anything positive, they have decided to tear down President Biden instead. They have no evidence, of course, to support this inquiry, but since this majority never lets facts get in the way of a good set of FOX News talking points, here we are.

Dozens of witnesses have sat for transcribed interviews. Every one of those witnesses tells us the same thing: There was no political interference in the Hunter Biden case. Nobody at the Department of Justice ever blocked the special counsel from bringing charges. Unfortunately, the American public does not have most of this story because Chairman Jordan refuses to release the transcripts from our interviews.

In fact, of the 85 interviews our committee has conducted so far, he has released exactly one transcript. He knows if he releases any more than that, his preferred narrative will crumble. The evidence simply does not support these baseless charges. Why is the MAGA wing of the Republican Party resorting to this political stunt? Two words: Donald Trump.

The likely nominee of the Republican Party, who faces 91 criminal charges in various courts, was also impeached not once, but twice, and we had evidence. Whenever the former President is accused of wrongdoing, his favorite move is to accuse his opponent of doing the same.

For this to work, of course, he needs President Biden to be impeached, too. Therefore, he asked his enablers in Congress to invent an impeachment, even if there is not a shred of evidence to back it up. Even if everything Chairman Comer said were true, which none of it is, an impeachable offense committed by Vice President Biden would not be under our Constitution grounds for impeaching President Biden.

This is political hackery, not serious work. We should be focused on doing the work of the American people and not be distracted by pernicious nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on this ridiculous resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I once again rise in strong support of any and all serious and meaningful efforts to combat antisemitism. Unfortunately, it's clear that the resolution on the floor today was drafted with the sole intention of scoring political points, not protecting Jewish students from antisemitism.

Last month, the House passed a resolution condemning antisemitism on college campuses and calling for campus administrators to ensure Jewish students and faculty are protected. Since then, I have urged the Majority to move past mere lip service and instead make meaningful contributions to the fight against antisemitism on college campuses.

If the Republican Majority truly cared about protecting Jewish students and faculty, they would have spent the last month implementing the Biden Administration's National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism and providing robust funding for the federal office working to protect Jewish students--the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. Instead, they put a spending bill on the floor that cuts the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights' budget by 25 percent.

If the Majority truly cared about protecting Jewish students and faculty, they would pass a bill increasing funding for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program, which provides critical funding to safeguard our nation's synagogues and Jewish centers.

If the Majority truly cared about protecting Jewish students and faculty, they would stop echoing racist `great replacement theories' and ignoring antisemitism emanating from the right--including antisemitic comments coming directly from the leader of their party. It's telling that the sponsor of this resolution has chosen to remain silent about former President Trump--whom she has endorsed--dining with a man who is calling for the genocide of ``perfidious Jews'' and other non-Christians.

Finally, if the Republican majority truly cared about protecting Jewish students and faculty, they would work with Democrats on this issue in a good-faith, bipartisan fashion instead of blatantly plagiarizing the work of a Jewish Democrat.

Mr. Speaker, the rise of antisemitism in the United States and across the world--particularly on college campuses--is a real and growing problem. I hope that someday, the Majority will use its power to actually do something about it instead of playing partisan political games. I continue to stand ready to work with the Majority if they are ever ready to address this issue in a serious, bipartisan fashion. However, I can not support this attempt to score political points masquerading as a resolution to protect Jewish students and faculty.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, the so-called Ensuring Accountability in Agency Rulemaking Act is a misguided proposal that will ensure that the process of confirming nominees to administrative agencies is even more politicized and onerous than it is today, while also blocking the regular work of our executive branch agencies.

This bill would require any agency rule promulgated under the Administrative Procedure Act to be issued and signed by someone who was appointed to their position by the President and confirmed by the Senate. This requirement, on its face, may seem innocuous, but it provides Congress with a weapon it can wield to prevent ongoing work of agencies by blocking a President's nominations and leaving an agency without an eligible person to issue regulations.

In the past few decades, the process for Senate confirmation has lengthened considerably. Although we have passed measures like the Federal Vacancies Reform Act to ease this burden, there are still over 1,000 executive branch roles that would require Senate confirmation, and far too many go unfilled for years at a time as it is.

By requiring that rulemaking must be initiated and signed by a Senate-confirmed leader, this bill will make the confirmation process even more politicized, and it could give individual Senators even more incentive to block nominations for the sake of a partisan goal.

This would add unnecessary delay in the creation, promulgation, and implementation of critical new rules, rules that serve to protect the public's health, safety, and security.

The bill's sloppy drafting also adds ambiguity to the process. For example, the bill requires that any rule must be ``initiated'' by a senior appointee, but what action qualifies as ``initiating'' a rule?

Is it when it is first raised in a meeting at the agency?

Is it when staff starts drafting a notice of proposed rulemaking?

Is it when a proposed rule is put out for notice and comment?

Is it something in between?

We do not know.

Determining the answers to these questions will only lead to years of litigation and yet more delay.

To the extent that the bill's sponsors are concerned about transparency and accountability in the regulatory process, Congress already has many ways to exercise its authority over the administrative process. For example, Congress can disapprove regulations under the Congressional Review Act, a power this majority has not been shy in using. It can limit agencies' rulemaking authority, it can restrict the use of funds to implement regulations, and it can conduct oversight of agency activity, among other powers.

Madam Speaker, this legislation is just the latest effort by Republicans to undermine the regulatory process, a process that protects our health and safety each and every day. Regulations ensure that we have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and safe food to eat. They ensure that children's toys and cribs are safe, that medications are safe and effective, and that the planes, trains, and automobiles we depend on for transportation will keep us safe. They ensure that consumers are protected from fraud and discrimination, that workers are treated fairly, that veterans are fairly compensated for their service, and so much more.

Nevertheless, Republicans want to stop this process in its tracks and put our health and safety at risk.

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

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Virginia says that recess appointees could help solve this problem, but a recess appointee is not confirmed by the Senate and, therefore, under the terms of this bill could not approve any regulation. The recess appointee question is irrelevant and doesn't mitigate the harm of this bill in any way.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, let me make two points. The gentleman from Virginia points out that paragraphs 1 and 2 do not apply if the head of an agency determines on a nondelegable basis that compliance with the relevant paragraph would impede public safety or security, but there is nothing in the bill to define public safety or security. It doesn't help at all.

I would also point out that the last President, not the current one, the last one, Mr. Trump, had a lot of acting agency heads. In fact, he has stated that he would like in another term to have a lot more acting agency heads so he doesn't need Senate confirmation.

That would mean that few, if any, people would have the ability to okay safety and security rules to keep our people safe and our water clean, our air safe, et cetera.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Mrvan).

Madam Speaker, this legislation is just the latest in a long line of Republican bills meant to undermine and even block agency rulemaking altogether.

This bill would not only erect another hurdle to the creation of critical rules that protect our air, water, land, and livelihood, but it would also require years of litigation to determine what the vague terms of the bill mean. We should reject any effort that would prevent agencies from issuing lifesaving regulations.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise today in strong support of any and all serious and meaningful efforts to combat anti-Semitism.

The explosion of anti-Semitism around the world, on college campuses, and online is so shocking that it was the subject of nearly every Jewish household's Thanksgiving meal a week ago.

The Jewish community is absolutely right to consider this terrifying situation a five-alarm fire, as Senator Schumer so appropriately put it in his moving speech to the Nation just a few days ago.

Unfortunately, this resolution does absolutely nothing to genuinely counter the scourge of anti-Semitism, nor does it help bring us together with the unity of purpose that this topic merits. Rather, it is another attempt in a long series of veiled efforts by the GOP to weaponize Jewish lives for political gains. It is another partisan gotcha game that amounts to cheap value signaling, not serious action. If there ever was a time for real action, it is now.

Today, in the face of the largest increase in anti-Semitism, both violent and virulent, in this Nation's history, we have a clear choice. We can abuse this moment to try to inflict interparty political damage or we can rise to the occasion and do something real and powerful to actually help the Jewish community.

Just in the last few weeks, we have seen disgusting displays of outright anti-Semitism. Over the weekend, protesters in Philadelphia targeted a Jewish business. It is plainly and unequivocally anti- Semitic to hold Jews collectively responsible for Israel's actions.

In my district, vile, anti-Semitic graffiti has been scrawled on apartment buildings in the Upper East Side. On the Upper West Side, two Jewish women were assaulted after calling out individuals who were despicably tearing down posters of Israeli hostages.

Last week in Brooklyn, three attackers violently attacked a 15-year- old Jewish boy, yelling, ``Free Palestine'' as they punched and kicked the stranger.

This anti-Semitic hate is happening across the country. The Oakland City Council rejected a bid to denounce Hamas, as speaker after speaker espoused dangerously misguided and factually erroneous views at a deeply troubling anti-Semitic public hearing.

Since the Israel-Hamas war began, the GOP has seemed gleeful at their partisan wedging at the expense of the Jewish community, and they have utterly failed to do anything serious to address this crisis. If they object to my charges, let me ask them here today three key questions:

First, what have my friends on the other side of the aisle--the only ones who actually control the agenda on the floor--done to implement the White House's National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism? This historic whole-of-government plan, which has bipartisan support, has been completely ignored in this dysfunctional MAGA-extremist Congress. The answer is clear: They have done nothing.

Second, when will the GOP majority stop its efforts to defund the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, the office that must protect Jewish students from the horrendous discrimination they face on campus today? In order to enforce title VI, the law that prevents such discrimination in education, the Department needs the resources to put legal and investigatory boots on the ground. The answer: The majority still supports defunding this office, and that means Jewish students will remain at terrible risk.

Third, what will the GOP do to ensure that the high-risk Nonprofit Security Grant Program run through the Department of Homeland Security has a meaningful increase in funding? This program keeps our synagogues and Hebrew schools safe across the country. The answer: House Republicans have done absolutely nothing to shore up this program.

I demand that we take real action. Representatives Goldman, Raskin, and I today introduced a resolution which would commit ourselves to the full implementation of the National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. I implore my Republican colleagues to join it. Join us and take concrete action.

I call on them to actually protect Jewish lives by a dramatic increase in funding for the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights and the high-risk Nonprofit Security Grant Program. That is what taking meaningful action would look like.

Mr. Speaker, by bringing this resolution to the floor without a single Democratic cosponsor, which is extremely unusual, and by rushing it to a vote without careful and considerate collaboration, my Republican friends have shown us who they are and precisely what are their intentions.

In my three decades in Congress, I have voted on numerous bills and resolutions addressing anti-Semitism, including my own. I have never seen an anti-Semitism-focused vehicle come to the floor without the cosponsorship of a single member of the minority party.

The House Bipartisan Task Force for Combating Antisemitism doesn't support such partisan gamesmanship, nor does the Anti-Defamation League, nor does the American Jewish Committee. With this resolution, the GOP has shown themselves fundamentally unserious about combating anti-Semitism. Of course, none of us should be surprised.

If our friends on the other side of the aisle were serious about combating anti-Semitism, they would have spoken up when former President Trump called the Nazis in Charlottesville very fine people. They would have condemned the former President when he dined with known Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. Chairman Jordan would have thought better before tweeting out ``Kanye, Elon, Trump,'' sending out dog whistles to their white supremacist, anti-Semitic base.

They also would have chosen their recent witnesses more carefully. Chairman Jordan chose to give a platform to Robert Kennedy, Jr., just days after he trafficked in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories suggesting Jews were responsible for COVID.

I cannot help but note that although this resolution strongly condemns and denounces anti-Semitism, its authors carefully avoided mentioning any of the obvious instances of anti-Semitism coming from their own leaders.

The resolution is flawed in other ways, as well. For example, the resolution implicitly compares some peaceful protesters with the January 6 rioters and insurrectionists. I suppose they have their reasons for that.

More problematically, the resolution suggests that all anti-Zionism-- it states that all anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. That is either intellectually disingenuous or just factually wrong. It unfairly implicates many of my orthodox former constituents in Brooklyn, many of whose families rose from the ashes of the Holocaust.

While most anti-Zionism is indeed anti-Semitic, the authors, if they were at all familiar with Jewish history and culture, should know about Jewish anti-Zionism that was and is expressly not anti-Semitic. This resolution ignores the fact that even today certain orthodox Hasidic Jewish communities--the Satmars in New York and others--as well as adherents of the prestate Jewish labor movement have held views that are at odds with the modern Zionist conception.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, ``the anti-Zionist world-view of the ultra-Orthodox groups . . . '' like the ``Satmar Hasidism perceives Zionism and the establishment of the State of Israel as an anti-messianic act . . . '' That is to say that these ultra-orthodox Hasidic Jews believe that only the Messiah can bring about the true Israel, and I assure you the Satmar Hasidic Jews are certainly not anti-Semitic.

I should also note that there are those who try to smear even progressive pro-Israel supporters with the inappropriate label of ``Israel hater'' or ``anti-Zionist.'' Under this resolution, those who love Israel deeply but criticize some of its policy approaches could be considered anti-Zionist. That could make every Democratic Jewish Member of this body--because they all criticized the recent Israeli judicial reform package--de facto anti-Semites. Might that be the authors' intention?

Again, let me be unequivocally clear, most anti-Zionism, particularly in this moment, has a real anti-Semitism problem, but we cannot fairly say that one equals the other.

As the most senior Jewish Member in this House, with perhaps the largest Jewish constituency in this country, I have always and will always support real, meaningful legislation to combat anti-Semitism. This, of course, is deeply personal for me and for so many of my constituents. Indeed, I take a back seat to no one in this body when it comes to fighting against this scourge.

In the aftermath of October 7, we have a moral obligation to act to protect our own Jewish citizens and our critical ally Israel. I pray that the GOP majority makes today the day that they stop playing these partisan games and commit themselves to doing the real work to protect Jewish lives. There is not a single minute to spare.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we hear in this resolution about the opposition to anti- Semitism. As I said before, I would be more impressed with the sincerity of that opposition if the Republican Party were not trying to defund the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, the office that enforces title VI to protect Jewish students on campus, and if the Republicans were not opposing an increase in funding for the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights and for the high-risk, nonprofit security grant program that protects our synagogues and other Jewish institutions.

Mr. Speaker, the rise of anti-Semitism in the United States and across the world is a real and growing problem.

I wish the majority would use its power to actually do something about it instead of playing partisan political games.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on October 7, the State of Israel was treacherously attacked by the terrorist group Hamas. They murdered 1,200 peaceful people, many of them at a musical festival, some from Kibbutz Nir Oz near the border. They kidnapped 250 people illegally, of course, and took them into Gaza.

We know that some of them have been released in a deal that was made, one of them was an American Israeli named Abigail, just 4 years old. She was kept together with three other hostages and was given one piece of pita, Middle East bread, for the four of them per day. When they came home, they had to be deloused. Their hair and their clothes were full of lice, and they said that if they had to go to the bathroom, they had to wait 2 hours.

Mr. Speaker, Hamas has said over and over again, they will attack over and over again, again and again until Israel is no more. When people demand a cease-fire, we should think what we would have thought about people demanding a cease-fire 7 or 8 weeks after Pearl Harbor. A cease-fire would simply permit Hamas to regroup and to attack Israel again and again and again, which they have told us they would do.

By the way, there had been cease-fires. There have been four cease- fires, every one of which Hamas broke, including breaking a cease-fire on October 7.

One of the hostages who was taken was a fellow named Danny Elgarat, brother of Yitzchak Elgarat. I want to read what Danny said about that.

He said, ``My name is Danny, Danny Elgarat. Around 10:30 a.m., my brother calls me, my brother, Yitzchak Elgarat. He lives in Kibbutz Nir Oz. He tells me that his hand is crushed, flooded with blood. He was hysterical and stressed, and I didn't quite understand what was going on with him, and I tried to guide him how to apply a tourniquet to stop the blood.

``Suddenly, while I am still trying to guide him, I hear screams in the background and shouts. Then Itzik, my brother Itzik, shouts `Danny, it's the end. It's the end,' and our call is cut off.

``Afterwards we checked the matter of Itzik's phone, the location of the phone. We found out that his phone is located in Gaza, the center of the city of Gaza.

``When he would come back to us, we would sit in the porch with a good glass of Whiskey and we would say it was just a bad dream.''

Mr. Speaker, I pray for Yitzhak and all the remaining hostages who were so barbarically taken from their families. Bring them home and defeat Hamas so they can't do this again and again and again.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to Amendment 109 which imposes a cap of 30 percent of the total grant on all facilities and administrative, or F&A, costs for research awards made by the National Institutes of Health.

F&A costs help keep the lights on at research facilities across the country. These costs are essential reimbursements for operational expenses incurred by universities and other research institutions for conducting research on behalf of the government. This amendment would greatly affect the ability of research institutions to operate cutting- edge laboratories and maintain utilities such as heating or hazardous waste disposal.

This amendment would reduce critical scientific research that directly contributes to our ability to save lives and reducing suffering for the communities we serve. Most medical breakthroughs were federally supported and took place at medical schools, teaching hospitals, and other research institutions across the country. Without the federal government's reimbursement of F&A costs, institutions would be forced to scale back research that may help develop the next vaccine or cure for cancer, Alzheimer's, and other health threats, or the next technological innovation that will create new businesses or medical devices.

As a result of these cuts, Americans will have to wait longer for cures and our country will cede scientific breakthroughs to foreign competitors such as China, which is heavily investing in this space. This would undermine our nation's economic competitiveness and erode the United States' longstanding commitment to medical research that has yielded countless benefits to society and our well-being.

In summary, cutting essential F&A costs for scientific research would result in slower scientific progress, longer waits for cures, fewer jobs, and a threat to our nation's economic competitiveness. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1505, the No Stolen Trademarks Honored in America Act.

H.R. 1505 would build on existing law to ensure that executive agencies do not recognize, enforce, or otherwise validate the assertion of trademark rights used in connection with a business whose assets were confiscated by the Cuban regime unless the original owner expressly consented to the transfer of that mark. It also makes technical amendments to ensure that we are in compliance with certain international obligations.

This legislation largely involves a long-running dispute over the rightful ownership of a specific trademark that has played out over the course of many decades. It is a tale with more twists and turns than a John Grisham novel.

This bill is really about a much larger principle--that we stand with the Cuban people whose property was seized by the Castro regime, and we will not give the protection and benefits of the U.S. trademark system to the holders of stolen property. Our trademark system must not be allowed to be a vehicle for the perpetrators of stolen property to profit from their theft.

I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) for bringing this legislation forward.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes a minor clarification to our trademark laws while serving notice to corrupt regimes across the world that America's intellectual property system must not be used to further their efforts to steal property from their own people.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1105, the Debbie Smith Act of 2023, would reauthorize landmark legislation first enacted 19 years ago, in 2004, which has been instrumental in addressing a backlog of untested rape kits sitting in evidence rooms and crime labs across the country. Nearly 20 years ago, when I helped lead efforts to help enact the original version of this legislation, I said: ``It is imperative that we eliminate the shameful backlog of untested rape kits.''

Despite our best efforts, the backlog still exists, and my thoughts remain the same. It is imperative that we eliminate the rape kit backlog; full stop.

For every rape kit that is yet to be tested, there is a victim of an unspeakable crime who has yet to see justice or find closure. In some cases, there is an individual languishing in prison who does not belong there. It is for these reasons that we must continue the crucial mission of this legislation and ensure justice for survivors and for the wrongfully convicted.

Over the past two decades, the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program has been vital in supporting the processing and analysis of rape kits, DNA evidence collection and analysis, and victim resources. Millions of dollars have been allocated to increase the capacity of forensic laboratories in countless jurisdictions, provide DNA training and education to thousands of law enforcement personnel, and provide support services to a multitude of victims. As a result of this legislation, thousands of cases have been solved, and countless survivors have finally received the justice they so rightfully deserve.

While we laud the numerous achievements made possible by this legislation, ultimately, we know that funding is vital to the success of this grant program. That is why I offered an amendment to similar legislation during the 107th Congress that would increase the authorization of funds to address the backlog to $150 million.

Although the Debbie Smith program was authorized to provide up to $151 million in grant funds during the following Congress, the full amount has never been appropriated, and it appears that the amounts appropriated are decreasing each year.

Failure to fully fund this program limits the capacity to address the backlog, which often numbers in the thousands and has worsened largely due to the pandemic. If we really want to solve this problem, we will appropriate $151 million, the full amount of the authorization, in this year's budget. Delays in testing undermine public safety, allowing dangerous criminals to evade apprehension and potentially commit additional crimes. It is my hope that the appropriators will fully fund this critical program going forward.

Reauthorizing the Debbie Smith program makes our communities safer. By investing in DNA testing and forensic technology, this legislation ensures law enforcement agencies are empowered to identify perpetrators more efficiently and to link them to other unsolved cases. These identifications and connections not only bring closure to victims and their families, but they also prevent future crimes by removing serial offenders from our streets. Above all, reauthorizing the Debbie Smith program sends a clear message to survivors of sexual assault, domestic violence, and other crimes that we stand with them.

While Congress has recognized the urgency of addressing the backlog and disbursed millions of dollars in grant funds through the Debbie Smith program and other grant programs in response to this problem, we must be certain that these funds are put to good use. That is why H.R. 1105 would also reauthorize for 5 years the allocation of grants for State and local governments that receive funding under the Debbie Smith program to conduct an audit of sexual assault evidence that is in their possession and awaiting testing.

This particular provision promotes the collection of data to help us better understand the nature and extent of the backlog and why it persists, while providing grantees with the resources they need to perform the audit and comply with other conditions and requirements set forth in the statute without reducing the total funds available to carry out the primary purposes of the Debbie Smith program.

The Debbie Smith Act of 2023 is an important measure that ensures our continued support of State and local governments in reducing the nationwide backlog of untested rape kits, protecting victims, closing cases, preventing crime, exonerating the wrongfully accused and convicted, and holding perpetrators of crime accountable, while promoting the thoughtful allocation and use of Federal funds.

Again, I emphasize that this will not work as well as it should. We will not protect as many victims as we should; we will not exonerate as many wrongfully convicted people as we should if we don't fully fund the program and if we don't convince the appropriators to appropriate the $151 million authorized in this bill.

I thank Representative Ann Wagner for introducing this legislation along with Representatives Sheila Jackson Lee, Steve Cohen, Wesley Hunt, and Ben Cline. I encourage my colleagues to join me and a broad, bipartisan coalition of cosponsors in support of H.R. 1105.

Mr. Speaker, the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program has proven to be a bipartisan beacon of hope, shining a light on justice sometimes long denied. This legislation would reauthorize this crucial program and other safeguards and emphasize our commitment not only to public safety but also to survivor support and crime prevention. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the important responsibilities the House gives the Judiciary Committee is to oversee the revision and codification of the statutes of the United States. Keeping track of the new laws Congress passes every session is a formidable challenge, but it is an essential part of maintaining the rule of law in our country, and it is a role we take seriously on the Judiciary Committee. I thank the chairman of the committee for bringing legislation to the floor today, on a bipartisan basis, to further this important duty.

The body of Federal law is so large and complex at this point that it would be almost completely unmanageable without the United States Code. Currently consisting of 54 titles, the code compiles the general and permanent laws of the United States into coherent subject areas. This makes our Federal laws accessible both to the government officials who work to fairly administer them and to the private citizens who seek the benefits and relief the laws provide them.

The painstaking and vital work of maintaining and updating the code falls to the expert lawyers working under the supervision of the House in the Office of Law Revision Counsel. We owe a great debt to these attorneys

who ably carry out their statutory mandate to develop and keep current an official and positive codification of the laws of the United States while maintaining strict impartiality as to legislative policy.

H.R. 3496 is the first of four editorial reclassification bills that we are taking up today that make conforming changes to statutes that have been impacted by the Office of Law Revision Counsel's reauthorization efforts while making no change to the meaning or effect of any existing laws.

This legislation will help ensure that the code is an authoritative, accurate, and accessible source of Federal law, and I urge all Members to support it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, like the previous bill, H.R. 3506 makes a number of technical amendments to various provisions of the U.S. Code but makes no substantive changes.

Mr. Speaker, I support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3578, which makes a number of technical amendments to various provisions of the United States Code, while making no substantive changes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ivey) for introducing the bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3571, which makes a number of technical amendments to various provisions of the U.S. Code, while making no substantive changes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean) for introducing the bill.

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