Floor Statements

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

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

Mr. Chairman, as a West Point graduate and Army combat veteran, I begin by thanking the members of the Armed Services Committee. They have put forth legislation that protects our troops and helps ensure the United States remains ahead of its adversaries. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to offer my amendments today.

From my time in uniform, I know firsthand that the brave men and women who raise their hands to defend this country are the backbone of our military. Especially with the conflict in Iran today, I am grateful more than ever that our sons and daughters are keeping us safe here at home and abroad.

Another essential pillar of military strength is energy. Without it, our jets don't fly, our ships don't sail, and our weapon systems do not function properly.

Energy security is not merely an economic concern. It is a national security concern. That is why I am grateful for the opportunity to offer amendment No. 818 to hopefully be included in the NDAA.

Amendment No. 818 would strengthen and secure the domestic energy supply chain that supports defense installations across the country. Today, California imports nearly 70 percent of all of its oil from foreign countries, and 30 percent of the oil comes from the Middle East.

It is not hyperbole to say that California has become dependent on the very oil that Iran is attempting to control through the Strait of Hormuz. This has led to a spike in gasoline prices for California residents. It has also exemplified why our military installations should not be reliant solely on foreign oil.

Washington State imports nearly 50 percent of its oil from abroad, despite having critical Navy and Air Force bases that need energy.

To prove this point one last time, Hawaii, home of the U.S. Pacific Command, relies almost entirely on foreign oil, 90 percent to be exact. Mr. Speaker, 60 percent of Hawaii's oil comes from Argentina, 15 percent from Libya, and nearly 10 percent from Nigeria.

How could one of our most significant military commands be 90 percent dependent on foreign oil? We could do it right here in our own country, specifically in my own home State of Texas.

However, we export hundreds of billions of dollars of energy from my home State. Despite these serious supply chain risks, companies working to address them too often face frivolous litigation from climate groups, even when those lawsuits weaken our military readiness.

Amendment No. 818, supported by the Department of War and HASC Subcommittee Chairman Bergman, would help address frivolous litigation targeting companies that supply our military installations with energy.

If the United States finds itself in a conflict with China, the last thing our military should face is a jet fuel shortage caused by baseless litigation tying up our domestic energy producers.

Importantly, this amendment does not lower environmental permitting standards or weaken existing reporting requirements.

This legislation merely secures a supply chain that is heavily dependent on foreign countries that could be weaponized against us if we don't fix it now.

Mr. Chairman, if we are serious about our military readiness, I respectfully ask the Chamber vote ``yes'' on amendment No. 818, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this is, in fact, an issue of national security. As somebody that is from Texas, what I understand very clearly is that we don't need fewer electrons; we need more.

While we are looking for the next abundant source of energy for the future, we ain't getting there, unfortunately, for many people in this room on the other side of the aisle, without energy and oil and gas, especially when it comes to putting fuel in the Apache helicopter that I flew in combat 55 times, supplying energy for our forces abroad, and for our allies abroad, as well.

The only thing that we are trying to do is make sure that we produce it safer, cleaner, and better here in this country than anywhere in the entire world.

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, amendment 1085 addresses a very similar challenge as amendment 818, but through a more targeted approach.

This amendment would require the U.S. Army to acquire an easement along the Santa Ynez pipeline in California--not property ownership, but an easement.

For more than a century, the U.S. Army has used its existing authority under title 10 to acquire easements that protect critical supply chains.

During World War II, the United States Government routinely condemned land that was used to build ammunition plants to supply our troops in Europe.

In 1941, when U-boats threatened tanker routes supplying the Northeast, Congress gave the government condemnation authority for pipeline rights-of-way. The impact of that legislation ensured that the war effort in Europe was kept fueled.

Amendment 1085 follows that same proven model: a Federal property interest securing a privately operated fuel corridor our military depends on.

California agencies and State legislators have filed repeated lawsuits against the pipeline in an effort to shut it down, even though California imports almost 70 percent of its oil. About half of the oil California imports is from oil that transits through the Strait of Hormuz.

This should not be an acceptable acquisition method for our defense installations that need energy to carry out our mission.

It is no secret in Washington that one of the biggest threats the United States faces--and the whole world, for that matter--is the threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. We must be prepared for this should it happen in the not-so-distant future.

We must keep our military installations fueled and energized by domestic sources if we are to maintain deterrence. Along with that, we also want to ensure that we don't engage in any conflict in the Pacific.

Amendment 1085 would affirm that this pipeline is important to national security to keep our military on the West Coast supplied with domestic-sourced energy.

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

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

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chair, oil is a globally-traded commodity. This is a one team/one fight conversation.

It doesn't matter which State you are from. Oil production for the United States and every electron that we are able to produce is very critical to our national defense; and also the needs of not just the United States, but also our allies.

We in Texas fully understand that. It is time for the entire country to understand that we have got to get in this fight together if we are going to continue to have abundant energy sources for the future so we can live the lives we have been accustomed to living and continue to defend this great Nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate yet another bipartisan win for the city of Houston this week. Within the WRDA bill the House passed yesterday, there were several important priorities that Congresswoman Fletcher and I spearheaded to ensure another catastrophic flooding event, like Hurricane Harvey, never happens again.

Specifically, the Army Corps of Engineers is now statutorily required to finish one of the most important studies facing Texas, the ``Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries Resiliency Study.''

Without the completion of this study, construction of a tunnel underneath our city will never be built to route floodwater away from my friends and neighbors in TX-38 and TX-7 and into the Gulf of Mexico.

I personally thank Congresswoman Fletcher and the brilliant staff in the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment for all of their hard work to ensure Houstonians can remain resilient in the face of another disaster.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 9563) to amend title 28, United States Code, to limit the availability of civil actions affected by United States sanctions, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 9563.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support for H.R. 9563, the Protecting Americans from Russian Litigation Act of 2024.

The Protecting Americans from Russian Litigation Act is simple. It is about protecting American businesses that are being unfairly punished by our adversaries.

U.S. sanctions are a vital tool of American foreign policy that safeguard peace and security, but there are times when U.S. sanctions can put American businesses in difficult situations. A U.S. business that sells goods in Russia, for example, may no longer be able to fulfill orders or complete contracts because of said sanctions.

In such sanctions, their Russian customers have been known to go to Russian courts for breach of contract or other claims. Suffice it to say, American businesses aren't likely to be treated fairly in a Russian court these days.

Russia is engaging in frivolous legal action against American companies because they divested out of their country after they invaded Ukraine.

Whether it is Russia, China, Iran, or any of America's adversaries, we have an obligation to protect America's interests and America's businesses at home and abroad. This bill would protect U.S. businesses and ensure that they are not unfairly punished for simply complying with U.S. sanctions and export controls. Similar provisions protect European companies in the EU courts, and it is high time that Americans get the same protections.

That is why this bill is so important in protecting American companies from unfair litigation. It will provide protection for U.S. companies by barring civil action against those who are forced to breach a contract because of compliance with U.S. sanctions and export controls. American companies shouldn't be forced to pay penalties for doing the right thing and complying with U.S. law.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to co-lead the Protecting Americans from Russian Litigation Act of 2024 with my colleague from Maryland, Mr. Glenn Ivey. I am also honored to have my fellow Judiciary Committee colleagues, Jerry Nadler, Darrell Issa, Scott Fitzgerald, Hank Johnson, and Laurel Lee, join as original cosponsors.

Protecting our businesses from being targeted by adversaries is not a partisan issue, which is why this bill passed the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support on a voice vote. This bill proves that even in a divided Congress, we can still work across the aisle in a bipartisan manner on the issues that matter to the United States the most.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 9563. I commend all the bill's sponsors and the Judiciary Committee for their hard work on this important bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, Congressman Ivey, for cosponsoring this bill with me.

This is about putting the priorities of the American public first, and it is about protecting the companies in this country that have done the right thing because of the sanctions that we have placed on Russia.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 9151) to strengthen the Department of Justice's enforcement against trade-related crimes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 9151.

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

Madam Speaker, U.S. trade policy is a vital tool to protect American businesses and workers, ensure American competitiveness, and achieve our foreign policy objectives.

For U.S. trade policy to be effective, we have to actually enforce the laws implemented in the United States' policy. H.R. 9151 would establish the structure needed at the Department of Justice to go after criminals who perpetrate trade crimes.

These crimes include trade fraud, tariff and duty evasion, illegal smuggling, trade-based money laundering, trafficking in counterfeit goods, and many more.

Today, criminal enterprises and bad actors, predominantly based in the People's Republic of China, are breaking U.S. trade laws with impunity. This fraud has seriously undermined our trade policy.

Additionally, in just fiscal year 2023, U.S. authorities seized over $2.7 billion of counterfeit goods, with the PRC accounting for more than 80 percent of those seizures. Those seizures reflect billions of dollars stolen from U.S. businesses and workers, which undermines the trade policies designed to protect them.

In the past 2 years, law enforcement has also identified $750 million worth of goods mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in the Xinjiang and Uyghur autonomous region. These goods carry significant risk of having been produced by forced labor and are illegal to import into the United States.

We must do more to punish the criminals who are breaking our trade laws and inflicting serious harm on our economy. H.R. 9151 will enable the DOJ to dedicate specialized personnel to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes.

I thank all the sponsors for their hard work, as well as the hard work by the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party to put together this excellent legislation.

I also thank the Judiciary Committee for bipartisan efforts that led to this bill being reported by voice vote, demonstrating that we can work across party lines to advance trade policies that protect Americans.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 9151 and give teeth to our trade policies. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar).

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

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 450.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 7377, the Royalty Resiliency Act.

This legislation is a commonsense fix to an accounting problem that has plagued both energy operators and personnel at the Department of the Interior for years.

Due to a myriad of reasons, including staff shortages and burdensome oversight, the BLM has encountered significant delays in approving communitization agreements, costing both the Federal Government and private industry billions of dollars.

Ensuring the Department of the Interior completes CAs in a timely fashion is something my office and the administration are continuing to work on, but this piece of legislation fixes an erroneous accounting issue that has been plaguing the Department of the Interior.

We all know that the Federal Government is not the best at returning your money, and the Department of the Interior realizes that timely and accurate royalty allocations are not only good for development but, more importantly, are the fairest way of conducting business.

That is why during a March 6, 2024, House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee hearing, Benjamin Gruber, Deputy Assistant Director for Energy, Minerals, and Realty Management supported my legislation.

Mr. Gruber stated: ``The department recognizes the importance of timely approval of units and CAs and supports H.R. 7377.''

I would also like to take a moment to recognize and thank my team on Natural Resources along with Eric Haley, who is on my staff.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 8281, the SAVE Act.

For years, Democrats have called Republicans conspiracy theorists for stating Democrats want illegal aliens to vote in our elections. Yet, President Biden and every single Democrat in Washington want this bill to fail.

If Biden and the Democrats want to clear up this conspiracy theory, the President, when this bill passes, needs to sign it into law.

On another note, I have been Black for my entire life. The most racist thing I have ever heard is the insinuation by Democrats that Black and Brown Americans are too stupid to get

an ID to vote just like everybody else. I call this the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Figuring out how to vote in this country is a very low bar, and we could all figure it out regardless of your race, religion, color, or creed, and we should all want free and fair elections.

With me today are six forms of government-issued ID that I won't pull out at this time. How did I acquire that? It is by personal responsibility in this country.

I have also heard a lot about Jim Crow here today. I am here to tell you Jim Crow is over, and I know it because my parents grew up in it. I think it is absolutely insulting to those that actually experienced the ills of Jim Crow.

Having an ID to vote in our Nation's elections should be a requirement, which is why I stand before you today urging my colleagues on the left to support this bill. If you want secure elections, if you want your vote to count, vote for the SAVE Act.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 546) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to authorize law enforcement agencies to use COPS grants for recruitment activities, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on S. 546.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the Recruit and Retain Act before the House today. The Recruit and Retain Act is about helping our men and women in blue. This legislation passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and I am proud to sponsor and lead this bill in the House along with my fellow committee member across the aisle, Representative Glenn Ivey.

Our police departments are struggling with crisis-level recruiting shortages.

Here in Washington, for example, the Metropolitan Police Department has the lowest number of officers it has had in the past 50 years.

Another example, since 2019, the Chicago police force has lost 3,300 officers as of October 2022, and it has only replaced about half of those departures.

Some small towns that don't have as many resources are even having to shutter their police departments entirely.

We cannot stand by and let this continue to happen across our country, and this is why we need the Recruit and Retain Act.

Currently, the DOJ provides grants to State, local, and Tribal governments to hire law enforcement officers under the COPS Hiring program. The Recruit and Retain Act would leverage the COPS Hiring program to ensure the program is responsive to the latest hiring challenges that law enforcement agencies are experiencing nationwide.

This bill would reduce the cost of onboarding new officers, specifically fees associated with background checks, psychological evaluations, and other testing. It will also alleviate administrative burdens and clarify application guidance to ensure grants are accessible to all law enforcement agencies. It will create new opportunities for law enforcement to build trust and interest in law enforcement careers with local youth.

Lastly, the bill will require research into the latest data and uncover new insights into law enforcement recruitment and retention trends across the country.

This bill does not authorize new funds or create new grant programs, and it only allows existing COPS grants to be used for recruiting and retaining police officers.

I am proud to say this bill has been endorsed by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Fraternal Order of Police, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Major County Sheriffs of America, National Association of Police Organizations, National Sheriffs' Association, and others.

When our police departments are well funded and maintained, our communities are safer. Americans are safer. Let's support our cops. Let's help attract the best and the brightest to the law enforcement profession. That is so important in the environment our police officers live and work in every single day in this country.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Recruit and Retain Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition not to H.R. 7659 or the United States Coast Guard but to a provision inside this bill that will decimate offshore oil and gas production in the United States as we know it.

Section 346 of this bill will impose such burdensome regulations on crews of foreign-flagged vessels that they would cease drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Within 90 days of enactment, offshore oil and gas production will come to an abrupt halt. Let me repeat that. Within 90 days of this provision's enactment, American oil and gas production will cease in the Gulf of Mexico.

The vessels and crews used in this industry are highly specialized and complex and require foreign workers. As it stands, there are not enough American mariners sufficiently trained to conduct such complex offshore work.

The systems used on these vessels take years of training and experience to operate and maintain. Anything short of precision could result in catastrophic outcomes.

Many of you know that I am America First through and through, I am a veteran through and through, but I am also realistic.

Foreign-flagged vessels and crews are used because the United States simply lacks U.S.-flagged vessels or trained crews to work in this specialized area.

This manning and crewing provision will put the United States at a competitive disadvantage and will drive up prices for American families.

I have said it before and I will say it again, American offshore oil and gas operators produce the world's cleanest barrels of oil and gas. We should be producing more oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico, not less.

This provision will cause the U.S. to produce less energy, allowing other countries to step into that void.

Let's not cede the advantages that America possesses to other nations that will produce dirtier barrels of oil and natural gas, increase the financial burden on Americans, and use the proceeds to undermine our national security and our way of life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inquire about a possible and deliberate violation of U.S. imposed sanctions due to Russian aggression.

As the war in Ukraine carries on and as Russian sanctions are imposed, I worry that our focus on Russian assets and agents in Europe has overlooked assets and agents in former Soviet republics such as Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan.

I would like to draw specific attention to various companies registered in Cyprus which operate in these former Soviet republics. One such example is a Cyprus-registered company which operates in Uzbekistan and Russia called United Cement Group (UCG).

UCG acquired the Uzbekistan government's stake in one of the country's largest cement factories in early 2022 in what has been described as an ``opaque'' transaction with no formal tender and a significant discount on the sale price. This acquisition by UCG has positioned the company to now control about 50 percent of Uzbekistan's cement capacity.

We are seeing monopolization under the guise of privatization, to the benefit of Russia.

This is just one example of a bad actor in these relatively overlooked countries that are taking advantage of the international focus on Ukraine. I will be sending a letter to Treasury Secretary Yellen imploring her to further investigate these apparently corrupt improprieties and potential sanctions violations that continue to transpire in this region of the world.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 495, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 44) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives relating to ``Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached `Stabilizing Braces' '', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.J. Res. 44.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 44 provides for congressional disapproval for the rule submitted by the Biden ATF relating to factoring criteria for firearms with attached stabilizing braces.

On January 31, 2023, the ATF issued a final rule that effectively bans pistol stabilizing braces nationwide. The ATF's rule redefined a firearm with an attached stabilizing brace as a short-barreled rifle subject to regulation under the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Let's be clear about what is happening here today. With one stroke of a pen, unelected bureaucrats in Biden's ATF changed regulatory definitions that will turn millions of law-abiding citizens into felons overnight. That is a fact.

If the owners of the roughly 40 million stabilizing braces in circulation today do not obtain a special registration, surrender, destroy their brace, or turn their brace in to the ATF by May 31, 2023, they could now face criminal penalties up to 10 years in Federal prison, with fines of up to $250,000.

This isn't happening because Congress passed a law or because a judge issued a ruling. This is an example of the executive branch making law. This is a Federal agency usurping the legislative authority that Congress has under the Constitution.

Congressional Democrats couldn't pass a bill that outlawed pistol stabilizing braces, so the Biden administration has utilized executive fiat to achieve the desired outcome.

To make matters worse, the rule directly contradicts a prior 2012 determination made by the Obama ATF. President Obama's ATF said that a firearm equipped with a stabilizing brace would not be subject to the National Firearms Act controls. The ATF says one thing for a decade and then does another which will then turn millions of law-abiding citizens into felons literally overnight.

Now, American citizens who own these pistol stabilizing braces and relied on the statements made by the ATF are in violation of Federal law and are subject to serious criminal penalties.

The Second Amendment is imbued in the Bill of Rights for a reason. It preserves the First Amendment and all other unalienable rights afforded to the American people. We don't need to reimagine the Second Amendment. We don't need to curtail it. We most certainly won't be repealing it with a 28th amendment.

This ATF rule is an affront against the rights of the American citizen and an assault on the Second Amendment, and it must be defeated.

This resolution will nullify the ATF rule and further protect one of our most basic rights and reclaim Congress' lawmaking authority given to us by our Constitution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a cost estimate for H.J. Res. 44 prepared by the Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Burlison).

Mr. Speaker, I am a Texan, I am a veteran, and I am a gun owner. I am a gun owner of multiple AR-15s, primarily for hunting, and, of course, to protect my three little kids at home, a 4-year-old, a 2- year-old, and a 5-month-old. No one is going to walk into my house and harm my children or my wife--my family. That, I can assure you.

Mr. Speaker, 6 percent of all gun homicides are at the hands of an AR-15 and weapons that are outfitted with a pistol brace--6 percent, and 60 percent are at the hands of a handgun, and the rest are weapons designated not as the two that I just mentioned--6 percent.

This is clearly an attempt to diminish our Second Amendment rights because if you just take away 6 percent of the gun homicides, it leaves you with 94, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that a homicidal maniac who wants to arbitrarily murder people will find another weapon of choice.

I hear the words weapon of war oftentimes, as well. I am an A-64 Delta Apache pilot. I flew 55 combat air missions in Baghdad. That is a weapon of war. A civilian-made AR-15 is nothing that I would ever take to battle.

Now, I also recognize that we do have a mass shooting problem in this country, and my colleagues on the left want to, of course, blame the AR-15. However, Mr. Speaker, I stand before you to blame the homicidal maniac.

I walk in these Halls every single day, and I am surrounded by brave men and women who carry AR-15s and weapons every single day. I have to walk through a metal detector just to get in this building every single day. Just because I wear this pin does not make me more important than my children.

So what I offer is that instead of trying to erode our Second Amendment rights, I would offer let's protect our kids. Let's ensure that they have the same protection that we have in the Halls of Congress.

There are over 400 million guns currently in circulation. By the way, the overwhelming majority of the people who don't use weapons are law- abiding citizens like myself. I refuse to allow the erosion of our Second Amendment rights to further disarm our population, making us less safe as a further push toward communism, because that is what happens.

When you disarm your population, then the government runs amok. We, especially down in Texas, are not going to allow that to happen.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly encourage my colleagues to support this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds).

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

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