Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the many contributions of Dr. Paul Berg to the science community. Dr. Berg passed away on Wednesday, February 15, 2023, at age 96. This loss is deeply felt across our community.

Paul Berg was born in Brooklyn, New York in 1926 to a Russian Jewish immigrant couple, Harry and Sarah Brodsky Berg. While he grew up in modest circumstances, his mother encouraged his passion for science. He graduated from Abraham Lincoln High School in 1943. Penn State University in 1948 with a B.S. in Biochemistry, and from Case Western Reserve University for his PhD in Biochemistry in 1952.

After his graduate work, Dr. Berg became a postdoctoral fellow with the American Cancer Society from 1952 through 1954. He worked at the Institute of Cytophysiology in Denmark and the Washington University School of Medicine. From 1955 through 1959, he was an assistant professor at the Washington University. Then, he was asked to help open a new biochemistry department at Stanford University. He was a professor at Stanford, where he was named Robert W. and Vivian K. Cahill Professor of Cancer Research Emeritus. He taught from 1959 through 2000. While he was a professor teaching biochemistry to graduate students, I was an undergraduate who was a friend to some of those grad students. Dr. Berg inspired them, tremendously. I remember well the optimism and excitement his teaching inspired his students, my friends.

While at Stanford, Dr. Berg helped raised $50 million to build the Beckman Center for Molecular and Genetic Medicine, of which he was the director from 1985 through 2000. Furthermore, in 2004, he became a leading advocate for CA Prop 71 which replaced federal stem cell research dollars with state taxpayer money when it was passed.

Dr. Berg's dedication to research changed both the drug production industry and the overall biotechnology industry, as well as the advancement of cancer research. He played an instrumental role in the 1975 Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA on the potential biohazards of recombinant DNA molecules, as well as leading research on gene- splicing and stem cells. Especially as the first scientist to use the gene-splicing technique using two different species' DNA, Dr. Berg paved the way for modern-day genetic engineering. One of his highest achievements, however, was earning a Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1980 alongside Walter Gilbert and Frederick Sanger for their research on nucleic acids. His contributions to science will continue to impact research and continue to save lives.

When I served on the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County, we were asked to approve a land use designation for a research facility on the Stanford Campus over which the County had land use authority. There being some community concern over the proposal, Dr. Berg came to meet with members of the Board (and public) to provide information. We were treated to a multi-hour personal seminar on biotechnology which is one of my treasured moments from my service on the Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to recognize and commend Dr. Paul Berg for his awe-inspiring achievements. His legacy will endure for generations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Charles ``Chuck'' Alexander, whose lifetime of service and commitment to California's South Bay warrants special recognition. Chuck had a relentless commitment to bettering others and his community. His loss will be profoundly felt by myself and so many others in the South Bay.

Born in Vernon, Texas, Chuck and his family made their way to Stockton, California in 1950. A few years later, Chuck graduated from Thomas Jefferson High School and moved to San Jose State University on a football scholarship. He was one of the founding members of San Jose State University's Kappa Alpha Psi-Delta Rho fraternity. During this era of great unrest and long overdue calls for racial justice, Chuck operated the Good Brothers home in San Jose, which ensured Black students and Black student-athletes had housing. Chuck graduated from San Jose State University after meeting the love of his life, Ms. Saphrona Williams.

Chuck's dedication to his community did not end with completion of his undergraduate studies. Instead, he embarked on a career with the Santa Clara County Probation Department. Serving first as a counselor for one of the Juvenile facilities, Chuck assiduously worked his way up in the department, eventually becoming head of the County's Juvenile Hall.

Chuck was a crucial member of the South Bay's civil rights movement. Chuck's spirit, character, and gregariousness made him one of the area's most beloved historians. Among many others, Chuck captured iconic photographs from his time at the Good House in the 1950's and at the San Jose Woolworth sit-ins in the 1960's. On the occasion of his passing, I join Chuck's many loved ones in mourning his loss, while also celebrating and honoring his extraordinary life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address a Resolution the House is considering that, and I quote, ``denounces the horrors of socialism.'' In reading the various ``Whereas'' clauses it's pretty clear that the authors have conflated ``socialism'' with ``totalitarianism.'' Further, they apparently believe that ``socialism,'' which they have not defined, is the political philosophy of notorious communist dictators. For example, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fidel Castro all described themselves as communists, not socialists. Why does this resolution ignore that? Why does it fail to condemn communism?

It's obvious that the purpose of this vote is political in nature. For the duration of my career (in Congress and before that), I have been a proud member of the Democratic Party. Not the Socialist Party. Not the Communist Party. Not the Republican Party. Not affiliated with any dangerous group or conspiracy theory, including but not limited to white supremacists or Q-Anon. I oppose and I have, on many occasions, spoken out strongly when there are anti-democratic atrocities around the world. I oppose totalitarianism.

Curiously, the resolution doesn't condemn fascism nor condemn Hitler. Yet by focusing solely on socialism and conflating socialism with communism and totalitarianism, H. Con. Res. 9 paints a distorted picture of the world. A rising tide of violent, anti-democratic forces, many from the far-right, also challenge us. Vladimir Putin (who is suspiciously not mentioned in H. Con. Res. 9) and his war of aggression in Ukraine, democratic backsliding Hungary and other far-right governments that commit human rights abuses and threaten democracy are weirdly given a pass by the authors. Sadly, the United States is not exempt from the growing threat of far-right extremism. From drastically increased rates of hate crimes to the violent attempt to overthrow the government on January 6, 2021, our society and democracy are threatened by growing extremism and violence of the far-right.

Some Republicans have called public education socialism, Social Security and Medicare socialism. I don't agree that these basic programs, loved by Americans, are socialism.

This Resolution does not address the challenges we face today. American families want solutions and policies that will help the middle-class, grow our economy, and protect our democracy--not empty political gestures. Take, for example, the ongoing crisis in Venezuela. Mr. Speaker, it seems the current Majority would rather score cheap political points than pass actual policies to address challenges involving Venezuela. I would know. In 2019, while I condemned the Venezuelan regime on the Floor, I was simultaneously advocating to designate TPS for Venezuela so those Venezuelans in America would not be forcibly sent back to that oppressive communist regime. I bring up this example because it highlights how Democrats in recent congressional sessions focused on how we could help people--not accuse people. We need to provide results instead of rhetoric. I strongly urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to focus less on ``gotcha'' Resolutions and more on measures that actually accomplish something.

This resolution, if passed, does absolutely nothing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today also in support of H.R. 290, the Commercial Remote Sensing Amendment Act of 2023.

I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, along with the chairman, and I am pleased to serve as ranking member of the committee, a new assignment for me.

It was all the way back in 1992 when Congress authorized the Secretary of Commerce to license and regulate commercial remote sensing space systems.

Commercial remote sensing is now a vibrant and growing industry. As the chairman has said, data and imagery from commercial remote sensing satellites are used widely in agriculture, disaster monitoring, energy, mapping, and national security applications. In fact, commercial remote sensing has been an important information source for fighting the devastating Western wildland fires, including those in my home State of California.

Companies from around the world are launching commercial remote sensing systems and selling the data. According to the Satellite Industries Association, globally, these services reached an estimated $2.7 billion in revenue in 2021.

Congress needs to ensure that the United States remains at the cutting edge of this industry and that is why it is important that we have the transparency and insight we need to oversee the licensing and regulation of private remote sensing systems.

In order to accomplish this, the Commercial Remote Sensing Amendment Act modifies the timeline for completing licenses to conform with updated regulations. It requires additional details on licensing information to be included in reports to Congress, and it extends a sunset clause for the annual report on commercial remote sensing licenses until 2030.

As the chairman has mentioned, an identical version of this bill passed this House on suspension during the 117th Congress, and I am pleased that Chairman Lucas and I can kick off our work this session by continuing the Science, Space, and Technology Committee's strong tradition of bipartisan work and our track record with this good bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that we all support this good bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I join the chairman today in supporting H.R. 342, the Cost-Share Accountability Act of 2023. I am pleased that today we are considering this bill.

Many of the clean energy technologies deployed throughout the Nation today have benefited from financial support from the Department of Energy.

The bipartisan Cost-Sharing Accountability Act of 2023 would strengthen the reporting requirements related to certain cost-sharing requirements at DOE.

Specifically, the bill would require the Secretary of Energy to report on the use of the statutory authority to reduce or eliminate cost-sharing requirements for research, for development, for demonstration, as well as commercial application activities.

As the chairman has noted, better reporting on financial assistance will help us to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely. As mentioned, we passed a matching version of this bill under a suspension of the rules in the last Congress. It is time, we hope, for the Senate to take this bill up and pass it this year after the House passes this again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California (Mr. Obernolte) for introducing this bill.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), the cosponsor of this bill and last year's chair of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, let me close by urging everyone to support this good bill, and let's celebrate carrying on the fine tradition of bipartisan legislative action in the Science Committee. I look forward to the rest of this Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 5229) to direct the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library to remove the bust of Roger Brooke Taney in the Old Supreme Court Chamber of the Capitol and to obtain a bust of Thurgood Marshall for installation in the Capitol or on the Capitol Grounds, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this measure under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this bill.

This bill, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent last week, directs the Joint Committee on the Library to remove the bust of Chief Justice Roger Taney, which now sits in the Old Supreme Court Chamber and to add a bust of Justice Thurgood Marshall here in the Capitol complex.

S. 5229 is the Senate's version of H.R. 3005, a bill which, for the second Congress in a row, passed the House in an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote.

The United States Capitol is a beacon of democracy, freedom, and equality. It is visited by millions of people each year. What and who we choose to honor in this building should represent our values.

Chief Justice Taney, who in the infamous Dred Scott decision declared that African Americans could never be citizens of the United States and had no constitutional rights, does not meet this standard.

As Senator Charles Sumner said during the 1865 debate on the bill originally authorizing the Taney bust, and I quote Senator Sumner, ``I speak what cannot be denied when I declare that the opinion of the Chief Justice in the

case of Dred Scott was more thoroughly abominable than anything of the kind in the history of courts. Judicial baseness reached its lowest point on that occasion.'' More than 150 years later, those words still ring true.

Who better to add to the Capitol complex than Justice Thurgood Marshall? Justice Marshall was a pillar of the civil rights movement and a tireless fighter for justice and equality. From his early days as a litigator, fighting to end Jim Crow and school segregation, to his appointment as the first African-American United States Supreme Court Justice, Justice Marshall is among the most important figures of American history.

Although I am disappointed that S. 5229 does not go as far as the House-passed bill did to rid the Capitol of statues and busts of white supremacists and those who served the Confederacy, we should not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Let's take this opportunity to rid our Capitol of the bust of the man who does not deserve the honor and add one of a man who unquestionably does.

Now, some may argue that this action is an attempt to erase and forget our history. Nothing could be further from the truth. We must never forget our Nation's shameful periods of slavery, segregation, and racism, but this is about who we choose to honor, who we choose to literally put on a pedestal and display as emblematic of our values.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 5229, and I reserve the balance of by time.

Mr. Speaker, I will note that I currently chair the Joint Committee on the Library, and I welcome the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask that all Members support this bill.

There have been a lot of really bad Supreme Court cases over the years, but I don't think it can be said better than Senator Charles Sumner said all the way back in 1865: The Dred Scott decision was more thoroughly abominable than anything of its kind in history.

Chief Justice Taney, the author of this dreadful decision, is really a scar on America and should not be in a place of honor in our Capitol.

Support this bill, and we will remove that stain.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings during the former Members program be printed in the Congressional Record and that all Members and former Members who spoke during the proceedings have the privilege of revising and extending their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1508, I call up (H.R. 3648) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based immigrants, to increase the per-country numerical limitation for family-sponsored immigrants, and for other purposes, 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 include extraneous material on H.R. 3648.

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

Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering H.R. 3648, the EAGLE Act, a bipartisan bill that raises the per-country caps on family-sponsored immigrant visas and phases out the per-country caps on employment-based immigrant visas. The bill also includes significant improvements to the H-1B visa program that add protections for U.S. workers.

Our immigration system has not been significantly updated since 1990, and it really just follows the basic outlines for the bill that was enacted in 1965. The failure to evolve the immigration system has significantly damaged America's ability to compete in an increasingly global economy. The system is supposed to encourage immigration based on an individual's family ties to the United States or their ability to contribute to our economy. It often falls short.

For example, there are backlogs for families seeking reunification. That could be legal residents of the United States trying to get their spouse a legal residence visa. There are backlogs in some countries but none for Western Europe. In addition, in the employment-based context, before a foreign national can apply for a green card--here is the process--their employer has to advertise and demonstrate that there are no U.S. workers who are here who can do the job that they are being offered. This is to make sure that green card applicants are providing services and skills that are not readily available in America.

But after this initial test, which is merit-based, the per-country caps kick in. For example, under current conditions, an individual from Western Europe, a Western European country, applying for a green card in the employment-based second preference category based on a bachelor's degree would be able to gain their permanent residency in about a year. In contrast, an Indian national with a Ph.D. and potentially superior skills might have to wait approximately 200 years. That doesn't help America.

I would note also that the individuals who would ultimately benefit from the elimination of what amounts to a racist system of allocating visas, 95 percent of those individuals are already in the United States legally working on a temporary visa, but in limbo. As that limbo continues, their children who have been raised in the United States age out, and when they hit 21, they have to go back to the country their parents are from, but their parents remain legally in the United States.

We are losing individuals who we need in America, including physicians--25 percent of the MDs in the United States are foreign- born; many of them are from India. I have personally met physicians whose children have aged-out who decided they have to move to Canada where they can get a green card equivalent in under 6 months.

Now, the disparity, as I mentioned, in the family-sponsored context, there are some family-sponsored immigrants from Mexico whose wait time is over 200 years before they are eligible to receive a green card.

That doesn't make any sense at all, and in fact, it is a fraud on those applicants.

We have been trying to change this system for over a decade. The Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, an earlier version of this legislation, first passed the House in 2011 and again last Congress. Iterations of this bill have been led by both Democrats and Republicans, received over 350 ``yes'' votes in the House, and passed by unanimous consent in the Senate.

The EAGLE Act is based on a bill that passed the Senate last Congress, with additional restrictions to protect American workers and a longer transition period to ensure that no country's nationals are excluded from receiving visas while the per-country caps are phased out.

Why is this important? People base their expectations on the situation as it exists. The Congressional Research Service has analyzed this bill and stated that no one currently in line is negatively impacted by this legislation.

I thank Representative John Curtis from Utah for working with me to introduce the EAGLE Act. I appreciate my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have previously supported this legislation, and I urge that we, once again, vote in favor of this bill.

A system that is based on where you are born instead of what you can do is not what serves America well. A system that is designed to advantage someone born in Western Europe over the entire rest of the world doesn't really recognize merit, which is what this bill is all about. We should have a system based on competitiveness, not the country where you were born.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I recognize my colleague from the Judiciary Committee, I would just like to note that the issue about the EB-4, which is the children, is not correct.

Under current law, if you are a minor and have been abandoned by your parent, you can go to State court, and the State court will make a finding that you have been abandoned by your parent. Then, you can become eligible for legal permanent residence in the EB-4 category.

By the way, you are not, under law, able to then petition for a parent once the parent abandons you. They are out of the picture. That is backlogged right now from Central America. This bill will have the effect of easing those backlogs for orphans from Central America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a distinguished member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

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

Mr. Speaker, I do want to address the issue of membership in the Communist Party. It has long been part of the Immigration and Nationality Act that if you were a member, you are not admissible. I will read the section. ``Any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.''

Now, there are some exceptions, for example, if your membership was not willing. We do know that in some cases, and not just in China, Russia signed up, essentially, Boy Scouts as members of the Communist Party against their will, and they were 12 years old. So the consular officer can find exceptions based on that, and that is sensible.

Now, the one point that the gentleman did make in committee had to do with applying this Communist Party inadmissibility provision explicitly to H-1B applicants, and we did take him up on that suggestion. In fact, that is a reasonable thing to do. The gentleman made that point because H-1B visa applicants have dual intent. So the application is eminently reasonable when it comes to those dual-intent immigrants.

Although we did not draft the amendment at the markup, we did contact the gentleman's legislative director and went back and forth with the lawyers on the staff, so there was full knowledge of this provision, and I thank the gentleman for raising the issue.

There have been complaints that we haven't had hearings. We have had a lot of hearings on this issue. In fact, I can recall so well, physicians--a quarter of the physicians in the United States are foreign born. Most of those medical doctors were born in India, and they are providing medical services to underserved communities throughout the United States. I have met many of them. We have had testimony from them at our hearing in the Committee on the Judiciary.

To tell the people who are getting their medical care from these physicians that it doesn't matter, these physicians have to go to Canada and leave them without a doctor in their small town, that is not reasonable. Failure to act will result in that type of situation. In fact, it is already resulting in that type of situation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a note on the issue of nursing, which is very important. As you know, we have had a very tough time with nurses in America. They have been through COVID; the trauma has been enormous, and we have a need for more nurses while nurses are leaving the profession for understandable reasons.

Part of the answer is nurses who want to come to the United States and practice nursing. That is not the whole answer, but it is part of the answer, and so at the request and suggestion of Senators who we have been talking about, there is a carve-out of 4,400 visas for nurses and physical therapists during the transition period. We think once the transition is over, we will be adequately accommodated, but during the transition, that is included.

I would note that the Society of Hospital Medicine does support this bill.

We had three hearings in the Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee on this topic, and I think we had an understanding on the subcommittee kind of on what all the issues were.

This is our best effort at dealing with those issues. It has received broad support in the past, bipartisan support in the past, and I hope it would do so again.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of notes. First, this bill does not add any additional visas to the visa system. There were efforts to do that, plans to recapture visas. That was never agreed to by the Senate, and so this is an allocation of existing visas. It doesn't add a single visa.

As I said before, 95 percent of the individuals who would be impacted are already here legally in the United States. They are legally working in the United States. So it is no new people coming in, either. It is people who are already here, no additional visas.

We asked the Congressional Research Service to do an analysis because people wanted to know--and they were right to want to know--is there any adverse impact on Africa or the Caribbean, and CRS told us there was no impact on Africa or the Caribbean.

Referring to the EB-5 category, I think those who are concerned don't realize that we actually changed the EB-5 Act through the Integrity Act earlier this year, and due to those changes, 32 percent of the green cards available every year for investments go to a new category. It is completely current. There is no backlog.

I just want to talk a little bit about what we are doing here. My colleague from California said we are talking about picking winners and losers.

In 1965, the Congress did pick winners and losers when they designed this structure. The winners were Western Europe, and the losers were everyone else. Now, that system, although not, I am sure, intended to be called racist, did advantage people from Western Europe to the disadvantage of the rest of the world, and we are still working on that system today.

I think it is time to change that system. It is time to move to merit, not to

race, not to the country you were born in. I am not accusing any critics of this bill, I am not talking about their motivation, but the fact is, if we don't change this system, we are supporting something that we did in 1965 that really has an effect of having race play a role in who gets a visa instead of merit on the employment side. I don't think that serves our country well.

Put aside for a minute our ideals just to discuss the economic impact. We do well economically when the very most able people who want to come here and be Americans, to start companies, to invent things are able to do so. The current system throws a wrench into that, and it is not good for the United States of America.

I hope, once again, that we can vote to approve this bill. It doesn't do everything I would like to do in reforming immigration law. As the gentleman knows, I have worked for many decades to do a variety of improvements, but this fixes something.

Let's not say we can't do anything unless we do everything. That is a path toward mediocrity.

Let's do what we can do to make this system work better, to move it away from its racist origins and have a system based on merit.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1508, I call up the bill (H.R. 7946) to provide benefits for noncitizen members of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes, 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 insert extraneous material on H.R. 7946.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, this House will pass H.R. 7946, the Veteran Service Recognition Act 2022. This is a bill that recognizes and honors the commitment and sacrifices of our noncitizen servicemembers and veterans.

Noncitizens have served in our military in every conflict since the Revolutionary War. In tribute to their patriotism, our laws offer noncitizen servicemembers an expedited pathway to citizenship.

Unfortunately, this expedited path is not always known to the servicemembers themselves; sometimes there is confusion or lack of information. Not every legal permanent resident who could avail themselves of this opportunity has, in fact, done so; and we have found instances where servicemembers believed that just by serving they had become a United States citizen. Our bill does have some measures to make sure that that information is better communicated in the future and there is less confusion.

However--and unfortunately--the complexity of the current immigration system puts some unnecessary roadblocks to naturalization but also can have a terrible impact on veterans who have not availed themselves of the opportunity.

The traumas of war can have terrible effects on our veterans. Individuals suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder are far more likely to become entangled with the criminal justice system. When that happens, citizens merely avail themselves of the criminal justice system. For example, if they are arrested for drug possession, they might serve time in the county jail, and when they are released, they have paid their debt to society. But noncitizens who are in the same situation--people who fought for our country--might serve their jail time for drug possession, but then they also face immigration court because a crime that might lead to relatively minor consequences for a U.S. citizen could lead to deportation of a noncitizen veteran.

Now, noncitizen veterans' service records are meant to be considered during removal proceedings, but such consideration rarely occurs. Consequently, veterans who earned the right to citizenship decades ago have been deported.

H.R. 7946 corrects this problem by giving deported veterans the opportunity to apply for a second chance and obtain lawful permanent residency. Relief under this bill is discretionary--available only to those veterans whose return is in the public interest.

Additionally, the bill creates a review process for servicemembers in removal proceedings to ensure that their service records are taken into account by immigration judges. It has an advisory council to examine at length the veteran's record to see whether or not he or she was suffering from PTSD and the like. The information can then be given to the immigration judge, but the immigration judge retains the authority to make the decision.

The legislation, as I mentioned earlier, makes needed changes to current laws to allow servicemembers to naturalize as early as possible, and we believe these changes will ensure that future veterans will not be at risk of deportation.

Finally, H.R. 7946 codifies the current Parole in Place for the immediate relatives of U.S. citizen servicemembers and veterans, making permanent an administrative program that began in 2007 under then- President George W. Bush. At the time, we had come across instances where an American soldier was killed in action, but his mother was subject to deportation, and that mother who was sent outside of the country could not even visit the grave of her deceased military son.

George Bush sought to change that. We have kept that change in place ever since, and this would codify it.

This bill is supported by numerous advocacy, labor, and veterans' groups, including The American Legion, the Nation's largest veterans service organization. We made a commitment to our noncitizen servicemembers when they joined our Armed Forces, and our laws really should reflect that commitment.

I am proud to have worked alongside my colleagues, Chairman Nadler, as well as Chairman Takano, and I would like to mention specifically other members of our caucus who introduced bills on this subject--they were all collected into this final product--including Congressman Correa, Congressman Ruiz, Congressman Vargas, Congressman Grijalva, and several others.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will note that the exclusion of those serious offenses was in the base bill. We didn't have to be convinced of that. We used the definition of ``veterans'' in the veterans code, and veterans who have an honorable or a general discharge are eligible for benefits, so that is what we used. Dishonorable discharges are not included.

I will just say this: These are discretionary matters. If you have multiple DUIs--let's say you have three DUIs, but they are 25 years ago, and you have a completely clean record. You might be able to seek administrative review of that matter. That is all this does.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee who has played such a key role in this, noting also that the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America are supporting this bill and supporting Mr. Takano.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would just note, once again, that those with dishonorable discharges are not eligible under the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa), who has served on the Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee. He served in this Congress. He is the author of one of the bills that was included in this bill and has visited with deported veterans across the border.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro), who has played such a useful role in the crafting of these measures.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who is a proud member of the Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee and a long-serving member of the House Judiciary Committee.

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

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

This bill is an important step forward to making sure that those who served our country in the military are given every consideration. We know from the reports we receive from our vets how tough it can be.

I think it is important to note that Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America are supporting this bill. They know better than I do the kind of trauma that can be experienced in these theaters and have been experienced by our brave men and women in the military. They also know that sometimes those traumatic experiences can lead to a path that is destructive for the veteran, a veteran who is suffering from PTSD.

Now, if a military member, a vet, was born in California and they use drugs because of PTSD, they might spend some time in jail, but then they would have paid their debt to society.

If, instead, their fellow soldier was a legal permanent resident of the United States, born in another country, but volunteered to fight for our country, after they pay their debt to society for the exact same circumstances, then they are booted out of the country.

That is why The American Legion is saying they support this bill, because we owe some kind of honor and stature to those who step forward to volunteer to fight for our country. That is what we owe them.

I will just close with this. I am going to represent a town called Salinas, California. I was there last month, and they have put up on every light pole on the downtown street pictures of people from Salinas who served in the military. It is so inspiring.

They had a little ceremony to unveil these photographs of the Salinas heroes. After that, one of the veterans organizers said to me, the worst experience of his life was driving his sergeant to the border to be kicked out of the country he fought for. It is not right.

This bill will change that, and I hope that we will all vote in favor.

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

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas

Madam Speaker, it is no secret that our country is facing increasingly devastating disasters, including wildfires.

In my own home district, the SCU Lightning Complex fires of 2020 burned nearly 400,000 acres over 46 days across five counties, destroying more than 2,000 structures and damaging others. That was the fourth-largest wildfire recorded in California's modern history.

As chair of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation, I hear about fires like this almost year-round from my colleagues, but it is not just a Western United States problem. Fire risk areas are growing exponentially to threaten new districts and new States every year.

And fires don't rage only in Democratic districts. This calamity knows no political divide.

As wildfires continue to worsen, our government has not acted with enough urgency. It is clear that Congress needs to pass legislation to better prevent and respond to wildfires.

Last month, I joined State and local officials to specifically discuss this policy and operational gaps, and the systems that we have in place obviously don't work as well as they should.

FEMA's current statutory authorities and operational practices limit our ability to prepare for and recover from wildfires. That is why all the California firefighters, chiefs, and leaders I met with support the FEMA Improvement, Reform, and Efficiency Act, or FIRE Act.

We know that wildfires present a unique and increasing danger, and we also know that policies written with hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes in mind don't always translate well.

The FIRE Act would direct FEMA to create a process that uses the red flag warnings we are all too familiar with to take predisaster measures and predeploy resources to take disaster-specific damages into account during recovery and the like.

It is commonsense legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

I would like also to thank the co-leads on this bill--Congressmen Thompson, Huffman, and Panetta--for recognizing the importance of this legislation and for their hard work, as well as Senator Padilla for his leadership in the Senate on this bill.

I thank Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer for their efforts to bring this to the floor. I would also like to recognize Ranking Member Graves and, of course, Congressman LaMalfa for working with us on reaching agreement on something that I think will be able to pass the Senate.

This is a good bill. It will improve our response, and I hope we get overwhelming support here today.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to remember the life of Eric ``Rick'' Zabel, who worked for the U.S. House of Representatives' Chief Administrative Officer's Office of Payroll and Benefits, and passed away Saturday, February 5, 2022, after more than 43 years of Congressional service. Rick served as a Retirement Counselor, supporting staff in the offices of House Leadership, Officers, and Committees over his 13 years of service to the People's House. Before joining the House, Rick also worked for the U.S. Senate for over three decades as a Retirement Counselor for Senate Disbursing, providing faithful service to all Congressional staff throughout his tenure. Rick was a consummate professional and took great pride in providing detailed information, benefit options, retirement estimates, and advice to ensure Congressional staff could make well-informed retirement decisions and maximize their benefits.

The CAO was lucky to be blessed with the knowledge and expertise of Rick's more than 43 years of Legislative Branch retirement experience. The House truly benefitted from his expertise, with staff of the Office of Payroll and Benefits learning under Rick's tutelage to progress in their careers as Benefits Specialists. Rick equipped staff from the Office of Payroll and Benefits with his knowledge, professional pride in ensuring staff understood their retirement benefits, and ability to assist Congressional staff in maximizing their benefits.

Rick was an early-bird and always ready with a cheerful morning greeting of ``Hey, how you doin'?!'' Those who knew Rick will miss his passion for retirement as well as chatting with him about his wife, Rosemary, and his sons, Christopher, Matthew, and John Paul, his Maine Coon cat, T.C., his love of golfing, his green thumb gardening skills, his time at Virginia Tech, and his excitement about baseball--in particular, the New York Yankees. Rick coached his son's little league baseball teams and loved every moment of imparting his love and knowledge of the game with a new generation, specifically his boys. One of Rick's most exciting professional baseball memories was attending the New York Yankees World Series games in New York and being a part of the pinnacle of the sport, cheering on his favorite team. Rick also had a favorite National League team, the Washington Nationals, and was able to attend a World Series game for the 2019 season in which they won the World Series 4-3.

Dealing with the loss of a colleague and friend is always very difficult. The Legislative Branch lost a dear colleague and friend in Eric ``Rick'' Zabel, who will be sorely missed. However, his legacy will continue in the Congressional staff he counseled about their retirement and the colleagues he trained over the years.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to Steve W. Marsh on the occasion of his Congressional retirement from the U.S. House of Representatives, CAO Office of Finance--Accounting Department as of Thursday, May 5, 2022, after over 24 years of service. Steve started as a Staff Accountant with the Chief Administrative Office on March 16, 1998, tasked with the Property, Plant, and Equipment (PP&E) reconciliation process where he quickly became the subject matter expert. Steve was promoted on October 1, 2000, to Senior Accountant, and July 1, 2012, to Accounting Manager. Steve played a significant role in the implementation of the House's financial system of record, PeopleSoft, and was an integral part of the CAO Office of Finance team that has received a clean audit opinion for twenty-three consecutive years for the U.S. House of Representatives. Best wishes to Steve W. Marsh on a long, happy, fulfilling, and well-deserved retirement.

Madam Speaker, I wish to recognize today a special group of dedicated and outstanding employees of the Officers (Clerk of the House, Sergeant at Arms, and Chief Administrative Officer) and of the Inspector General of the U.S. House of Representatives and congratulate those who have reached the milestone of 25 years of service to the U.S. House of Representatives.

The House's most important asset is its remarkable and steadfast employees, whose work is essential to keeping the operations and services of the House running efficiently and effectively. The employees we acknowledge today are commended for their hard work, dedication, professionalism, and teamwork; support of House Members, their staffs, and their constituents, and for their contributions day- in and day-out to the overall operations of the House. These employees, whose work is often performed behind the scenes, possess a wide range of responsibilities and skills that support the legislative process, ensure the security of this great institution, maintain our technology and service infrastructure, and contribute to more efficient and productive House support operations. These devoted employees have accomplished significant and essential work in a diverse range of activities, and the House of Representatives, its Members, staff, and the American public is better served because of them.

We recognize and honor the following individuals for 25 years of loyal service to the House. Collectively, the employees listed have provided 375 years of service to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Gordon Alexander, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer; Ricky Buckler, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer; Alicia Carcamo, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer; John Collins, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer; Andrew Graeub, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer; Michael Keane, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer; Adam Magary, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer; David McKittrick, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer; Donald Myhill, Office of the Clerk of the House; Frank Overby, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer; Carol Peterson, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer; Nancy Sumner, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer; Gary Thiessen, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer; Alan Vaughan, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer; Donna K. Wolfgang, Office of Inspector General.

On behalf of the entire House community, I want to congratulate, acknowledge, and thank these employees for their professionalism and commitment to the U.S. House of Representatives as a whole, and in particular to their respective House Officer, the Inspector General, and collaboratively across these organizations once again. Their long hours, hard work, diverse skills, and team spirit are invaluable, and their years of unwavering service and dedication to the House sets an example for their colleagues and raises the bar for the employees who will follow in their footsteps. I applaud all our honorees, and I am proud to stand before you and our great Nation on their behalf to recognize the importance of their public service.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to Philip D. Hamner on the occasion of his Congressional retirement from the U.S. House of Representatives, CAO Office of Finance--Accounting Department as of September 30, 2022, after over 27 years of service. Philip started as an Accounting Supervisor with the Chief Administrative Office on June 12, 1995. Philip's outstanding work ethic and accounting knowledge of the U.S. Standard General Ledger (USSGL) allowed him to be promoted to various positions, like Systems Accountant, Deputy Director, Accounting, Acting Accounting Director, and finally Director of Accounting as of September 1, 2011. Philip has led his team in the compilation of the Annual Financial Statements and the annual external audits. Philip played a significant role in the implementation of the House's financial system of record, PeopleSoft. Through Philip's successful leadership and immeasurable knowledge of accounting, he has led the CAO Office of Finance team to receive a clean audit opinion for 23 consecutive years for the U.S. House of Representatives. Madam Speaker, I wish Philip D. Hamner embrace all new opportunities that are presented to him, as he did at the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 4791) to amend section 301 of title 44, United States Code, to establish a term for the appointment of the Director of the Government Publishing Office.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.

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

I rise in strong support of S. 4791. This bill, which was introduced by Senator Roy Blunt, passed the Senate by unanimous consent. It would establish a term of 10 years for the Director of the Government Publishing Office.

Unlike the heads of other legislative branch agencies like the Architect of the Capitol, the Comptroller General, and the Librarian of Congress, the Senate-confirmed Director of the Government Publishing Office has no defined term.

Now, the Government Publishing Office, or GPO, as we often refer to it, is one of the true treasures of the legislative branch. Since it was founded in 1861, it has grown from a modest operation to one of the world's largest and most renowned information organizations.

Every day, GPO provides the government and public both conventionally printed products like the Congressional Record and passports, and digital services like eBooks, digital publishing, mobile access, and more. It also plays a key role in continuity of government in case of an emergency.

Over the course of the past several years, we have seen firsthand the importance of effective leadership at GPO. The COVID-19 pandemic caused the largest disruption to agency operations since the Civil War. But thanks in no small part to the leadership of Director Hugh Halpern, GPO provided top-notch, uninterrupted service to Congress to ensure that we were able to provide relief to American families, communities, and small businesses; and the agency did so thoughtfully and responsibly, with the discipline needed to stay as safe as possible.

In fact, one prominent business award organization named GPO the ``Most Valuable Employer During the COVID-19 Pandemic.''

This bill would bring the GPO in line with the rest of the legislative branch and establish the same 10-year term for its director that currently exists for the Architect of the Capitol and the Librarian of Congress. As with those agencies, the Director of the Government Publishing Office would be eligible for reappointment and, given his track record, certainly would have earned it.

Formalizing the term of the director will ensure that the agency has effective leadership and allow for increased transparency and accountability. For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to support this piece of legislation.

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

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

Mr. Halpern did, indeed, work in the House of Representatives. He was on the Republican staff, and I think it is meaningful that the chair and ranking member of the House Administration Committee, Democrat and Republican, feel the same way; that he has done a terrific job as director of this office.

The term limits is not about him. It is my understanding he actually supports Senator Blunt's bill; but it is simply to have a time where you evaluate and then you can reappoint, just as with the Librarian of Congress and the Architect of the Capitol.

Since I don't have additional speakers, I am going to take advantage of a little bit of time to discuss an item that will be up for consideration on the floor later today; and that has to do with a proposed change to venue rules for Federal antitrust cases. It is very arcane, which is why I think it is important to discuss the minutiae of this.

In 1968, Congress acted to allow a senior judge panel to consolidate cases where it would be efficient for the Court. Here is the example. State AGs have the capacity, right now, and would in the future, to file antitrust cases. But if you had, as they did in 1968, a multiplicity of AGs filing a case in different States, you would end up with different witnesses having to go through the same thing over and over again, inconsistent rulings; and so that is why the Congress consolidated this.

In that case, it was large, multi-district litigation having to do with electrical equipment, and it has worked pretty well. Why we would change it is something that has been a mystery to

me. The arguments in favor, I think, do not hold water.

The Administrative Office of the Courts has pointed out that the U.S. cases are not subject to transfer under this section; and why is that? The Department of Justice coordinates itself, unlike the separate attorneys general.

I do think that the possibility of adverse outcomes is quite possible. Certainly, Mr. Neguse's bill to raise fees is something I support. I am a cosponsor of that bill. But if we reject the venue provisions, we will just go back and bring Mr. Neguse's bill up later; so that is what I would recommend.

I just want to say something further. This venue rule is not just oriented toward one sector of the economy. Mr. Buck, the author, mentioned technology yesterday, ``Big Tech'' was his words.

But this isn't about technology. It is any business that is a defendant in an antitrust case. As I mentioned, the initiation was an electrical equipment company.

But I think we should listen to what people say. Mr. Buck, in his remarks, said yesterday, Big Tech is crushing conservative speech, and that appears to be his motivation.

Well, he quotes his friend, Senator Cruz, and he says, the greatest threat to democracy in this country is Big Tech; that Senator Cruz agrees with that. Well, really? I mean, Senator Cruz, who voted not to amend the Electoral Count Act that was promoted by Roy Blunt, the author of this; who tried to overturn the election of 2020; who says that moderating inflammatory or dangerous content is a violation of free speech or may be a violation of antitrust.

I think that is the danger here; and I listened to Mr. Buck because he said this is about conservative speech. So I think one potential outcome of this is litigation that will be brought in favorable forums to try and prevent content moderation.

If you are Infowars, and you are inciting violence, I am hoping whatever platform you are on takes you down. That is not conservative speech or liberal speech, that is dangerous speech, and I do hope that we will see this for what it is.

Not every AG is a model of probity. The Attorney General in Texas right now is hiding from process servers and has, as we know, some other legal problems.

To suggest that every Attorney General is going to be guided by principles of law, as we would hope the Department of Justice and many of the AGs are, would be a serious mistake.

I am glad to have had a moment to get into this very arcane issue because there may not be time later today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also urge adoption of Senator Blunt's bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.