Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I had a chance to ask some questions to Attorney General Garland and talk about what is happening at the Department of Justice.

What became very evident as we were having our question-and-answer today is that there are two sets of rules in America. It starts with our immigration system, where we are seeing people come across our southern border, people being imported from all parts of the world, and they are getting free things from the American people. They get food stamps. They get free housing. They get all of those things that are free, while Americans have to pay for it.

One of the questions I posed to the Attorney General is in regard to Facebook, and I think that very much highlights that there are two sets of rules in America. Recently, Facebook Vice President William Castleberry, said: ``We do allow people to share information about how to enter a country illegally or request information about how to be smuggled.''

Don't you think an administration, in particular an Attorney General, would be concerned about that?

Let me read to you U.S. Code title 8, subsection 1324. It makes it illegal for any person to knowingly encourage or induce an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States in violation of law or for individuals to aid or abet illegal entry.

Yet, Facebook is allowed to do that. Are they a full-blown subsidiary of the Biden administration at this point? A person has to be very concerned over the last couple months that that is what is happening.

The Attorney General would not make a commitment that he is going to investigate what is illegal activity from one of the largest companies in the United States of America and, clearly, one of the most powerful companies in the United States of America.

Also what came out of our hearing today, in my State is Fort McCoy, and we have been hearing stories coming out of Fort McCoy as a result of the mass migration perpetrated on the American people by the Biden administration over the last 2 months.

We found out very early on that there was no SIV process that was going on, no Special Immigrant Visa process. They were just being waived in on parole.

We found out people could leave any time that they want to. We found out that 600 people were in quarantine with measles, COVID, and tuberculosis--just being allowed into our country.

We found out that there were people being charged with violent crimes, a man raping two young boys in that camp at Fort McCoy. We found out that a man was beating his wife to death at Fort McCoy. We found out at Fort Bliss that a female soldier was being beaten by Afghan men.

The American people wonder; they wonder why there are two sets of rules.

My good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), brought up the story in regard to the rape on the Philadelphia train that has horrified Americans. The assailant was an illegal immigrant with prior convictions related to sexual abuse and drugs. He should have been deported. However, he was allowed to stay in the United States after an appeals board determined that his prior sex crime was not serious enough to merit his removal.

I asked the Justice Department, how serious does a sex crime have to be?

These are the two sets of rules that we are seeing in America, and they are seeing it in a stark basis, with the mass migration that is coming into our country.

We have an Attorney General that is being urged by school boards across the

country to entertain the use of the PATRIOT Act on mothers and parents. We won't use the PATRIOT Act on people who propose to come into the United States of America illegally, but we will use it on our own citizens? Something is wrong, America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Trig Solberg and his wife, Tula, on the 50th anniversary of their business, T.A. Solberg Company, which operates several supermarkets and fuel and convenience stores throughout northern and central Wisconsin.

Trig and Tula started their first business together in 1971, with a single small store in Land O'Lakes, Wisconsin. Today, they operate several stores in the communities of Rhinelander, Minocqua, Eagle River, and Tomahawk, employing more than 1,200 people. The Northwoods of Wisconsin is dear to the Solbergs, so they make sure each of their stores keeps the personality of the region intact.

I can attest that Trig is admired by staff, colleagues, and industry peers for his dedication to his community and commitment to excellence.

Congratulations again to Trig and Tula Solberg for 50 years in business and their service to Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Biden administration's latest plan to infringe on the privacy of millions of Americans.

Amid raging inflation and a multitrillion-dollar spending spree, President Biden and the Democrats now want to spy on American citizens' financial transactions.

This proposal would require financial institutions to report information about the outflows and inflows on all accounts with over $600 to the IRS every year.

Not only would such a massive data collection cause large compliance costs for our local banks, credit unions, and financial institutions in Wisconsin and across the country, it would further deepen mistrust in our financial institutions and community banks.

The IRS experiences 1.4 billion cyberattacks annually and has experienced multiple data breaches. This leaves Americans' most private of information vulnerable to attack and fraud.

Privacy is one of the main reasons individuals do not open bank accounts. Having the government monitor and collect data on personal financial account transactions will further this distrust with financial institutions.

Law-abiding Americans deserve the right to privacy over their personal financial data. Allowing the government to sift through our financial records is a violation of our basic right to privacy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Omar family.

On Labor Day, Kelly and Jay Omar ran out to pick up dinner for their family while their oldest child, Briar, looked after his four siblings.

It wasn't long after they left that the kids started smelling smoke. Briar and his sister Peyton began looking around and noticed that the playpen was on fire.

The 13-year-old immediately sprang into action, getting his four sisters, the youngest of whom is just 6 months old, out of the house.

After Briar got his sisters to safety, he went back into the house in hopes of putting out the flames with a nearby fire extinguisher, but the blaze had grown too large to contain. Smoke surrounded him, making it nearly impossible to breathe or see the way out. Luckily, their family dog, Mandy, nudged Briar before guiding him out of the house and back to safety.

Kelly and Jay Omar returned to find their house engulfed in flames but felt a sigh of relief as they counted each of their children outside and out of harm's way.

Although they are devastated by what they lost, they remain fortunate for what they still have.

Thank you for the heroic efforts of Briar to save his sisters.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

The ramifications of this amendment could be dangerous and far- reaching. Quite frankly, we should not be looking outside of the United States for such scientists and researchers. We should cultivate our own talent. Unfortunately, this bill does nothing to develop that talent.

We must ask, which foreign nationals would be eligible for the program? Most likely, those from China.

China is so intent on using our U.S. immigration system to steal our sensitive technologies that the Trump administration had to issue a proclamation suspending entry of certain Chinese students and researchers.

The Trump administration proclamation stated: ``The People's Republic of China is engaged in a wide-ranging and heavily resourced campaign to acquire sensitive United States technologies . . . to bolster the modernization and capability of its military.''

The proclamation went on to state that ``students or researchers from the PRC studying beyond the undergraduate level . . . are at high risk of being exploited or co-opted by the PRC.''

Because of the brutal nature of the Chinese Communist Party, the same is true for virtually any Chinese national who comes to the United States to study or research, or to otherwise work in sensitive technologies like those contemplated under this amendment.

In fact, the Department of Homeland Security told us last year that the Chinese government requires its nationals to ``support, assist, and cooperate with State intelligence work.''

The idea for this amendment came, at least in part, from the Commission on Artificial Intelligence, which called for ``increasing China brain drain.'' So clearly, the green cards contemplated under this amendment would go to Chinese nationals.

The last thing we should do is make it easy for the Chinese Communist Party to gain access to our National Security Innovation Base work, Department of Defense research, or other critical technologies.

I would also note that, sadly, the Department of Defense does not have a great track record regarding immigrant programs. Many of you may remember that the Department of Defense supported and encouraged the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest program through which foreign nationals were able to enlist in the U.S. military. Once enlisted, they were eligible to naturalize.

The Department of Defense was not living up to its promise to adequately vet and perform high-level background checks on the MAVNI participants. The program was halted by the Obama administration when it was discovered that the Department had allowed some Chinese spies to enlist in the military.

Let that sink in. The Department of Defense let Chinese spies enlist in the U.S. military. So I am not comfortable with several aspects of the program created by this amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, so once again, we hear that this will be a small number of people that are coming in. All we have to do is look at our southern border and other places for hearing about how small numbers of people are going to come into our country.

We also hear, trust the Secretary of Defense. As I cited in my opening remarks, we had a real problem with the MAVNI program, where the Obama administration discovered Chinese spies in our military. This is a serious, serious situation.

And here is the thing that I find frustrating, Mr. Speaker. We have so many people that project our freedoms and how we view them on other countries, including China, that they treat their people the same way. They simply do not, and it is fully proven that the Chinese Communist Party demands complete fealty of anyone, whether they are in China, or they come to our country to go back and give all information to the Chinese Communist Party. They do not protect intellectual property rights, which are a foundation of our freedoms here in America. We should not be sanguine about what this amendment will do.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Alabama for the time.

The amendment I speak of comes after many years of experiencing well- documented U.S. Navy maintenance backlogs and deficiencies and much- needed naval upgrades. These backlogs and deficiencies seriously inhibit our force-in-readiness and operational capabilities.

Our military needs to be the readiest it can be in order to meet the challenges of the future, and this amendment will help do that.

Shipyards across the country are ready, willing, and able to support the maintenance and upgrade requirements needed by our naval assets, including one in Superior, Wisconsin, in my congressional district.

These non-homeport shipyards can support vital surge capacity, addressing maintenance needs that cannot always be addressed in a timely fashion at homeports. This change will also support good family- wage jobs across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to have worked with Representative Stauber just across the border on this amendment. It is so important. By utilizing those people who work in the twin ports of Superior and Duluth, with their exceptional workmanship that they provide for shipbuilding on the Great Lakes, I think this makes this amendment very worthy.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, extending visa waiver privileges in the U.S. Virgin Islands for Caribbean countries will present yet another challenge for immigration enforcement and drug interdiction efforts.

The Department of Homeland Security has historically noted that a special visa waiver program for the U.S. Virgin Islands would result in a significant increase in overstays and make it easier for previously removed aliens to re-enter U.S. territory. This amendment would also hamper our efforts to stop the import of illegal drugs.

According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, cocaine is the principal drug threat in the Caribbean with the U.S. Virgin Islands already serving as a major transshipment point between cocaine- producing countries in South America and the continental United States.

A special visa waiver program for the U.S. Virgin Islands would also open the door to birth tourism, something we have already seen in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory in the Pacific.

In 2017, The Wall Street Journal noted that ``Saipan has become known as the latest hot spot for birth tourism, a place where women can give birth to babies who will automatically acquire U.S. citizenship.'' The problem has become so widespread that, in recent years, more children have been born to Chinese tourists on the islands than Americans.

Chinese syndicates have also taken advantage of the CNMI program to engage in human trafficking and forced labor. By any measure, the CNMI Visa Waiver Program has been an unmitigated disaster. We should be getting rid of these programs, not expanding them.

Madam Speaker, America's immigration laws and visa restrictions should apply uniformly across the country. We should not be creating special loopholes or allowing States and territories to operate their own independent immigration systems. At a time when the United States is seeing record illegal immigration and record asylum claims, creating this visa program is a bad idea at the worst possible time.

I have to say, I am stunned that the majority would bring this forth at this time when we have a deluge that is happening at the southern border. Now to create another loophole just like in the Pacific, only this time in the Atlantic, it is not appropriate to be doing this at this time.

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

Madam Speaker, I would just respond this way: America offers great support to all of our friends in the Caribbean. It is not accurate that we don't offer support. We do.

The second point is that the Secretary of--I am assuming she was referring to Homeland Security--could exclude or change the program. How likely is that when we see what is happening currently? When we were told by this government a month ago that people coming from Afghanistan would have an SIV, we have found very few of them have that. They have just been waived in on parole.

That is part of the reason why Congress needs to maintain its authority, because we cannot count on the executive branch enforcing the laws of this country. All we have to do is look at the news of the day to understand that we have open borders, and it is because the executive branch refuses to control our borders.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, arbitration clauses in contracts let private parties agree in advance on a way to resolve further disputes and have significant benefits. But for years, Democrats have worked relentlessly to undermine arbitration and the efficiencies arbitration agreements often have for private parties.

These agreements generally work well and the process itself is a fair and effective way to solve disagreements. Arbitration is also usually faster and cheaper than hiring an attorney and suiting up for drawn-out litigation.

Making arbitration harder for certain claims will mean Americans spend more time in court with no guarantee of getting better outcomes. The Democrat-driven campaign to up-end the use of arbitration will certainly benefit the plaintiff's bar. But it will make life worse for the American people.

With that context in mind, we can consider this amendment in light of the larger policy debate it is connected to. This amendment rests on the idea that pre-dispute arbitration agreements are fundamentally problematic and unfair or work poorly. But that is not true.

And this amendment cannot be considered in isolation. Instead, it is a policy gateway to the Democrats' longstanding priority to eliminate arbitration agreements entirely. This amendment should be rejected. Separately, it is true that we can have a debate over the merits of arbitration agreements now in the context of the NDAA, but we should not be having that debate here and now.

If the policy in this amendment is sound, Congress should consider that policy as an independent bill, in the light of day, and after appropriate congressional oversight.

Madam Speaker, I oppose this amendment because it is bad policy and because of this flawed process, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as I stated earlier, this is a policy gateway that the Democrats seek to eliminate arbitration. It has been a longstanding goal of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to achieve that goal, and this opens up the door to it.

And I think about the debates that we have in the Judiciary Committee, where courts are being clogged up, talking about needing more judges, changing the circuits, things like that. This will add to the clogging of our courts, and that is why we should oppose this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, my amendment, which is included in this en bloc, would prohibit the use of any funds to create, procure, or display any map which depicts Taiwan as part of the People's Republic of China.

This is a commonsense measure. As we all know, Taiwan has never been part of Communist China.

The Taiwanese people elect their own leaders, raise their own Armed Forces, conduct their own foreign policy, and maintain their own international trade agreements.

By every measure, Taiwan is a sovereign, democratic, and independent country. Any claims to the contrary are simply false.

Since the 1970s, America's so-called One China policy has acknowledged Beijing's bogus argument that Taiwan is part of Communist China.

This is a dishonest policy, and it is one that America should abandon.

While we cannot end this policy with my amendment today, we can at least require honest maps that stop perpetuating the One China lie.

Communist China is Communist China, Mr. Speaker, and Taiwan is Taiwan. I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks here, I want to wish my eldest daughter, Karlyn Tiffany, a happy birthday.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor a great American and resident of my district in Wisconsin. Jim Staberg of Hudson served in the Army from March of 1943 to June of 1946, and again September 1950 to July 1952.

During his first tour of duty, Mr. Staberg was originally assigned to the Army band, but as America was drawn into World War II, he found himself reassigned and serving as a gunner during vehicle patrols throughout Europe.

Mr. Staberg was involved in a heroic defensive stand by the Allies against Hitler's last charge at the Battle of the Bulge. He also served at the historic Nuremburg trials following the war, but this was not the end of Mr. Staberg's service.

Jim was shipped off to Korea for a second tour of duty, where he would, once again, defend freedom in the face of communist aggression. After his time in service, Jim married and had three children in Hudson, Wisconsin, which he still calls home today.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of a grateful State and Nation, I thank Jim Staberg for his service.

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

Mr. Speaker:

I do not like the cancel mob.

I do not like the groupthink blob.

We should not censor our own speech.

That's not a habit we should teach.

This isn't China or Iran.

Free speech belongs to every man.

This right belongs to women, too.

To teachers, students, me and you.

Don't let them tell you what to say.

Or what to think or how to pray.

America's for you and me.

For Dr. Seuss--not Jack Dorsey.

I thank the Speaker for the time.

And hope you liked my free speech rhyme.

Madam Speaker, while chaos reigns on the border, we have another Democrat jam job before us today.

I would turn to the committee ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), for a colloquy.

Did the gentleman see these bills in the committee?

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time.

These bills did not come before this committee. For someone like myself, who has just joined the committee, I did not even have a chance to be able to partake in this bill.

I wanted to express concerns especially about the H-2A provision in this bill because I am familiar--there is a parallel to the J-1 visas that we use in northern Wisconsin in the resort area. They are temporary visas. And what we found over the years as employers is that people would figure out how to use the J-1 visa to get into the country, and then go job shopping from there.

The H-2A is susceptible to the same thing. And due to lax enforcement, we could all live with it if there was good enforcement in America, but there is not good enforcement of our laws here in the United States.

So let's cut to the chase here. The gentleman from California touched on this very well. These bills devalue American workers' labor.

In 2019, the greatest increase in wages for people who are in the lower income brackets happened, the greatest increases in decades.

I just say to all of those working-class Americans out there: Make no mistake, these bills today are another clear message that you are viewed as replaceable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, America's border is under siege, and it is a siege that this administration continues to encourage with each passing day.

They say it is not a crisis or an emergency, even as they have dispatched FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to help manage the disaster that they have created.

In February alone, the shortest month of the year, overwhelmed border patrol agents encountered more than 100,000 illegal aliens crossing our southern border, including 30,000 unaccompanied children and minors. And that does not include the countless illegal aliens that slipped through undetected.

Mr. Speaker, as many as 25 percent of the illegal aliens that the border patrol apprehends are testing positive for COVID--and not all are being tested.

Thanks to the administration's catch-and-release policies, many of these aliens immediately board buses and fan out across the country, making every State a border State. That includes my State in the far north, Wisconsin, because I hear it from sheriffs and law enforcement all over northern Wisconsin, especially the drugs that flow in, the fentanyl, the methamphetamines, that flow into our communities killing our citizens.

Drug seizures were up more than 50 percent last month driven by huge spikes in meth and heroin, deadly poisons that ravage our families. In what is fast becoming a Washington tradition, the other side has tried to pass the buck and blame the border disorder on the last administration.

This is a tired talking point; one we will hear repeated over and over to explain away the policy failures of the one-party government they control. But facts are stubborn things.

This tidal wave of drug and human trafficking is a direct result of White House promises of amnesty, and the rollback of the commonsense border security safeguards put in place by President Trump. That is why it began at the end of January.

So what is their answer to this crisis? It is to pour gasoline on the fire by passing two amnesty bills that will give legal status to at least half of the estimated 11 million illegal aliens already in this country, including criminal aliens who have been convicted of multiple DUIs, drug and weapons violations, and even voter fraud.

One of the bills even includes an unbelievable provision allowing for the reimportation of foreigners who were deported as long as 4 years ago, bringing them back and giving them green cards. This is a slap in the face to the legal immigrants who have followed our laws. This is a slap in the face to American taxpayers, millions of unemployed Americans, and countless American families who have lost loved ones to the scourge of drugs like meth and fentanyl.

Even worse, it is a financial bonanza for the human traffickers and foreign drug cartels who prey on the vulnerable and profit from their misery.

So let's get this straight. The first act of this President was to open the borders and close our schools, or make sure that they stay closed. The first act of this President was to open the borders, the pipeline that brings the drugs and the human trafficking into America, but they closed the pipeline that gives us energy independence in America.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the administration to stop pretending that this crisis isn't happening, and to start defending the American people.

MADAM Speaker, I was undergoing a medical procedure and was unable to be present for several votes last week. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 64; NAY on Roll Call No. 66; NAY on Roll Call No. 70; and NAY on Roll Call No. 72.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to highlight one of the many reasons for my objection on Wisconsin's election certification.

A recent story out of Green Bay has highlighted possible improprieties during this past November's election. The story alleges that campaign operatives acted as de facto members of the city clerk's office and disrupted a fair election process.

I call on State officials to investigate this serious matter, as election integrity is the priority for an overwhelming majority of my constituents.

If signed into law, the recently passed radical H.R. 1 will not only codify the types of issues we have seen across Wisconsin, it will disenfranchise many voters across our great State and our country.