Darrell Issa

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I did ask unanimous consent that all Members be able to place extraneous material in the Record. I guess they are taking me up on it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Schmidt).

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, perhaps you can just consider that every time the other side speaks, they will be speaking in violation of our rules about disparaging the President, and you need not say it each time, I trust. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I note that what the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert) is referring to is what has now been affirmed as an inaccurate decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. My colleagues on the other side, in disparaging the President, keep using the word ``illegal.'' I ask that my Democratic Colleagues really reconsider. The minority may disagree with the executive actions of the President. From time to time, the court may disagree. Yet, in fact, not only are his actions not illegal, but they are well within the reach of what any President might well do in trying to defend the United States from enemies, foreign and domestic. We can disagree about the meaning of a law that has been on the books for 225 years. We should not disparage the motives or the actions of the chief executive simply because we disagree. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring down a little bit of the tone and remind everyone in this Chamber that the chief executive, since it was George Washington, has been charged by Congress to be the first to interpret the faithful execution of the Constitution and the amazing amount of laws that have been passed in our nearly 250 years. During those decades, one after another, all the way back with Marbury v. Madison, there have been disagreements and the Court has interpreted, but those interpretations, including Brown v. Board of Education, historically became nationwide when the High Court by a majority ruled one direction or the other. That is the way our Founding Fathers intended it to be. The ranking member of the full committee is a scholar and a teacher, a professor of this, and knows full well that we created under the Constitution a Supreme Court and then we gave to this branch, to Article I, to the Congress, the authority to create subordinated and specialized or limited courts. Those courts of any sort are under the Supreme Court because only the Supreme Court is to rule on the law of the land. Now, my colleagues have noted the last administration and the fact that parties, including more than a dozen attorneys general, from time to time came and asked for and may or may not have been granted nationwide protection. This bill, as amended in committee, thoughtfully amended, in fact, takes into consideration that there may be times in which multiple States are represented before one judge. As long as that judge is the nexus of at least one, and in the case of the District of Columbia perhaps speaks for all, he or she should rule on behalf of all the plaintiffs represented in front of them. Let it be clear: The work of the Supreme Court is not just to overturn one ruling by a judge. The Court most often in the 62 to 66 cases it takes per session, per year, rules primarily on when there is a difference between the ruling in one and the ruling in another. It rules very often because there needs to be a single voice for the law of the land. There doesn't always have to be. The fact is, if a plaintiff comes and says they represent one of many unlawful aliens, criminals, or terrorists who have been deported under a law that has been on the books for more than 225 years, the judge has a right to rule if that defendant has a legitimate nexus in their court, has a right to rule as to that plaintiff or any others that come before him that have nexus, but to rule that the President must turn an airplane around with dangerous terrorists on it, why? Why would you do that? The fact is, judges are shopped for. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, rightfully so, said that venue shopping has become a problem. That is not limited to Republicans or Democrats. In fact, both sides do it. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they do it in civil cases. They do it all over the place. Lawyers are very good at it, but as the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet and with the ranking member of the full committee here today, it is our obligation to fine-tune the law so that, in fact, these kinds of injustices don't happen. We are here today to fine-tune the law to protect the Constitution and the intent of Congress for more than 225 years. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just yesterday the Court ruled against the district judge by a 5-4 ruling undoing this whole question of does the President have the right to deport aliens. Yes. They said that there was a possibility of bringing a case in Texas as to one or more of them. To be honest, we have said that for quite a while that, in fact, there was a procedure and that, in fact, the chief judge of the D.C. circuit assigned himself four cases and made a decision that a chief judge should know better than. Now, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said the right way to deal with a judge that makes a bad ruling is, in fact, appeal it. However, the right way to deal with judges who take cases, take another case, take a total of four cases so far, and seem to rule very predictably, even if inaccurately, against the Trump administration is, in fact, to rein in the excesses. We try to do this in a measured way. I might note for the speaker that just today by a 7-2 overwhelming majority, the Court ruled, to no surprise to this Congressman, that the President has the right to dismiss probationary employees, even though an activist judge stayed that and said that he didn't have that right, that somehow everyone else can get rid of probationary employees, including the last administration that summarily dismissed immigration judges on the last days of the probationary period, and did so without seeing a nationwide injunction. There were plenty of opportunities to disagree, but I hope that my colleagues, once again, as the speaker has so well stated, will stop claiming that these are illegal actions when we simply agree or disagree with the actions of the President and in many cases the Court finds the President is well within his rights in faithfully executing his obligations. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the gentleman is prepared to close as am I, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, as I close, since the ranking member so aptly named a couple of famous quotes and famous movies, I might call attention to the line: What we have here is a failure to communicate. The other side, just a few months ago, supported this legislation in a more radical form than, in fact, we bring today. Thanks to Congressman Schmidt and others on the committee, we have thoughtfully amended this to make it limited, for which the ranking member and others seem to claim that we were somehow being nefarious. No, we weren't. In the last cycle under President Biden, yes, half a dozen or so attorneys general came and disagreed with the attempt to forgive $188 billion in student loans. There was a temporary injunction on behalf of those multiple States. Lo and behold, the High Court stated and ruled that, in fact, he didn't have the authority, saving us nearly $200 billion that was being given away by Joe Biden. Not in any way deterred by that, President Biden bragged that he circumvented it and did give away billions more. That is still something being worked on by this body. Presidents push the limits of their authority. President Biden certainly did. President Obama famously said he didn't have the authority to do things and then did them later and dared the Court to stop him. I think we have to come here and realize if we do our job, we are drawing the appropriate balance on one of the two branches that we do have an obligation to keep an eye on. We keep an eye on the executive branch, and the minority being the branch not of the President generally calls the strikes, the balls, and not the home runs. That is okay. They do it, and they have been doing it for 250 years. I commend them. We also have an obligation to come together, to communicate, to not have a failure to communicate, to realize that on behalf of the American people, on behalf of the best interests of the High Court not being swamped with an amazing amount of these, and not having future Presidents find themselves deterred from executing what they believe is best in a timely fashion, that we come together and vote this moderate and, quite frankly, modest piece of legislation. It won't stop all national injunctions, but it will define more narrowly when they can be done. I hope we would do that. I will close simply by saying Teddy Roosevelt sent the Great White Fleet out not necessarily having the money to get them back. Franklin Delano Roosevelt pushed the bounds of the Constitution for what he thought was right, including the incarceration of threats to our democracy under this very act, and the Court affirmed that. Presidents have seen reasons to do it. This President has seen an onslaught, more than 10 million illegals, many of them actually here from terrorist gangs, and he is trying to protect our Nation. I would hope that instead of talking about Elon Musk and others, we would come together to do something that we know if the next President is of the other party, my colleagues will be supporting something that looks amazingly like what we have in front of us today. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that all who are watching and listening take heed that this is a bill supported by the last administration and should be supported by everyone in this body. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate my constituent, Escondido resident, the secret soldier of the Korean War, and America's true Top Gun hero. I'm talking about the one and only Captain Royce Williams, who turns 100 tomorrow, on April 4th. It is difficult to describe what Royce did for more than 30 harrowing minutes more than 70 years ago in the skies over the North Pacific and the coast of North Korea. On that day in 1952, Capt. Williams faced seven Soviet MiG-15s. Alone. Royce shot down four. Alone. He survived dozens of bullet holes to his plane, and a 37-millimeter round to his fuselage. Six inches to the right or left would have meant certain death. This was indomitable courage and the demonstration of the highest skill under incalculable duress. And it was kept secret for 40 years. We won't stop until Royce Williams receives the recognition he doesn't seek but richly deserves. I wish a Happy Birthday to Royce. Next stop: The Congressional Medal of Honor.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, S. 3857, the Jamul Indian Village Land Transfer Act is a technical correction to my bill, H.R. 6443, which passed out of the House by voice in April of 2024. The bill is a traditional fee-to-trust agreement that will allow tribal members to move back onto their ancestral lands--so they can raise their families, carry forward their culture, and add to their history. This is the right thing to do, the smart thing to do, and it empowers not government, but individuals to take new charge and best care of their lives. I ask for passage of this bill, and I thank Chairman Westerman, Ranker Grijalva, and Senator Padilla for their support.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on S. 4199.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1612, I call up the bill (S. 4199) to authorize additional district judges for the district courts and convert temporary judgeships, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I will be brief in opening. This is, in fact, a highly bipartisan, bicameral bill that is, by God, overdue. Not since the nineties have we done a full authorization to deal with the expansion of our country and of the adjudication of Federal laws. The fact is this passed the Senate overwhelmingly. It had essentially no real adversaries. It costs just 5 percent of the discretionary bill, and it saves countless billions of dollars. The reality is this bill would have passed by unanimous consent had we brought it sooner. I apologize to everyone here for the hour we are taking about something that we should have done before the elections and done it quickly. Nevertheless, we are where we are. We are faced with a choice today. Do we add to the judgeships for the first time in 20 years and for nearly 40 since it was done by an ordinary legislation rather than appropriations, or do we, again, add to the backlog that is costing American businesses countless billions of dollars in excess time and fees and uncertainty as to the outcome? Do we continue to have criminals allowed to plead out because there isn't court time and U.S. Attorneys are faced with the decision of what to do with somebody when, in fact, there just isn't enough time to get them through? There are over three-quarters of a million cases in backlog and only about 600 judges to do it. This bill, over a 12-year period, will phase in additional judges. I would have liked them sooner, and my colleagues on the other side would have liked them sooner. This was a compromise. The compromise was painful but necessary and bipartisan, and that was that no one President and no one Senate would determine who these judges were, keeping the politics out of it. It would only be pettiness today if we were to not do this because of who got to be first. This is no different from a coin flip at the start of a football game. Yes, the winner gets to receive or kick as they choose, but afterwards it will go back and forth for a very long time. This is a very long time, and we should be with long thinkers on the most permanent body in government. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls), who is a member of the committee, a law enforcement specialist, and a decorated veteran.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, we often hear the term ``country before party'' here in the House and throughout our country. It is clear we didn't hear that here yet today on the other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline), a member of the committee, a member of the subcommittee, a cosponsor of this legislation, and an active proponent for the justice that we require by having Federal judges added to the bench.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, normally, when you know a bill is going to pass, you close quickly. I am going to break that rule for a few minutes today because I want to make one last plea. I wish the plea was to the American people as it should be. I wish the plea was to the Speaker as it will be from a standpoint of where I look and where I speak, but the plea is to the President of the United States not to be petty. It is to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to consider the long-term impact of this decision that has been spoken of today. As the ranking member and my friend, Jerry Nadler, said, this was bipartisan. This was something that was worked out, not just now, but the gentleman from New York and I worked this out in 2017 and similarly, we couldn't get it across the finish line. After that, people decided to be partisan for a while, and Jerry and I--if I may call the gentleman from New York my friend (Mr. Nadler), Jerry--we said no. We are going to go back to being men of the House. We are going to go back to doing what is good, putting country first, and particularly putting the needs of Article III, the other body, the one that we control, but only until they are appointed. Then once appointed, they serve for life. They serve in any way they choose for good behavior and as a result they become very independent and very much nonpartisan. I am going to appeal in a couple of ways, for a moment, to my colleagues who have to make a vote that is not immediately to their party's benefit and for which the first 2 years are not unknown. It is easy to talk about 6 congressional periods, more than 10 years, 3 Presidents, and say, but I am not getting it the first 4 years. Well, President Trump doesn't have 4 years; President Trump has 2 years in which we know that there is currently a Senate majority. Senate majorities come and go. Very easily 2 years from now the Senate could be under the other party's control. That would mean that no judge would be brought in those second 4 years, and half of those 25 seats that have been talked about here today, and probably more than half because of the time it takes to get through the process, more than half would be under a Senate that would say, no, we want to compromise. I am a Californian. I have only had in my 24 years Democrats as my Senators. I have had quite a few, different status, different dedication. One of them is the current Vice President Kamala Harris. I know how they use the blue slip. I know how in my State you don't get a super Trumper. The fact is, you don't get anyone without a process of going through those Senators and getting compromise. I know that the seven that are to be produced over these next 4 years--none of them, by the way, in my home district where I desperately need them, but that was also part of the consideration and compromise--those will be, in fact, with two Democrat Senators who insist on moderate Republicans. But let's go behind the nuances. After those first 2 years, we have 8 more years. It could be that most of those years could be with a Democrat President and a Democrat Senate. Maybe not, but let's talk about the benefit or damage that if the President--because this bill is going to pass, hopefully with bipartisan support and, hopefully, with many people that aren't here today who have heard from their judges. If the President signs it, yes, he will be signing saying that a few judges will be appointed and likely confirmed under this united government that currently is forecast. Let's look at the scope. There are 890 judges, including our appellate judges, 677 at the district court alone. In my district, almost half of the judges hearing cases are senior status. They don't even count. That means that there are over a thousand judges, including those who are on senior status, still working, essentially for free because they could retire and get the same money. They, in fact, are working because the backlog is over three-quarters of a million cases. They are working because otherwise patents and other civil cases that cost tens of millions of dollars often, if delayed, cost millions of dollars a year. They are trying to keep the system working. The damage to our country, to our economy if we choose not to have this bill signed into law could be great, and the savings could be even greater for the efficiency. Lastly, let's ask the real question. Over 1,000 judges, 890 not on senior status, and we are talking about 25 that could be appointed if the President holds the Senate for his 4 years, 25 out of 890. That isn't very many. In the opening remarks, my good friend from New York did mention that there could be 100 judges appointed by the next President and confirmed by the Senate. That is true. That is going to happen whether we expand this or not. The question is, for example: For the three temporary judges in Oklahoma, will the backlog of cases for Native Americans that prompted those temporary positions, will that continue? Will we continue to have judges constantly getting on airplanes and running around almost like a riding circuit in order to fill a gap here or there because they don't have enough judges but they try to find a judge that they can move around a little bit? Will we continue to have justice denied because justice delayed is justice denied, or will we alleviate some of this? Will we work with the Chief Justice and all the Justices of the Supreme Court? By the way, there are nine of them and not one of them has called the ranking member or the chairman and said, don't do this bill now because it might be partisan. The Justices of both parties, the judges appointed by both parties, are still calling all of the offices and asking, please move this bill. Lastly, in closing, I will share with my colleague on the other side of the aisle, I wish we had brought this sooner. I know that it would have been more likely to have been broadly passed and signed by a President who thought his Vice President was going to replace him or even earlier when he thought he was going to get a second term, but we are not there. We are in a position where I am going to ask as many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to vote for this, to put country before the obvious politics of it. Lastly, the plea I make to the former Senator that I served with, the former Vice President that I served with, and the President I now serve with, don't be petty. Don't put politics ahead of the good of the country. Before considering the signing of this bill, which I know will go to his desk, talk to the court, talk to Members that he, in fact, as a Senator from Delaware helped put on the bench and ask them: Should I sign this bill or should I veto it and hope that you can put up with 2, 4, or 20 more years before we send you enough judges to adjudicate the cases, particularly civil, that are pending? That is the plea I make here today. It is not a plea I have ever made before, and I hope I don't have to make it again. Mr. Speaker, I ask all our colleagues to please put country first ahead of the obvious politics that are here and vote for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on S. 3960.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3960) to amend title 35, United States Code, to provide a good faith exception to the imposition of fines for false assertions and certifications, and for other purposes.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this bill is a win for small businesses and small inventors. Small businesses may qualify for reduced application fees when applying at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. However, under 35 U.S.C. sections 41 and 123, a small business may claim small- entity or micro-entity status. For example, the standard cost of filing a utility patent is $320. A small entity, however, pays just one-half of that, $128; and a micro entity is charged only $64. When Congress passed the Unleashing American Innovators Act in 2023, the law required the United States Patent and Trademark Office director to impose punitive fines on entities falsely asserting or certifying entitlement to these reduced fees. This was intended to deter unscrupulous actors from claiming the benefit for which they did not qualify. However, in that bill, we granted no exceptions under existing laws for those who made an honest error in good faith. For example, if an employee is mistakenly categorized as a contractor rather than an employee, a good-faith mistake could cause them to claim the wrong status. Or if there is a mistake in information provided by another company that is a licensee, that could also result in that. The impact of these punitive fines would be disproportionate to the honest mistake. These harsh fines may deter entities from seeking the benefit of small- or micro-entity status since the potential cost of the fine would far outweigh the benefit. To ensure that small businesses can get these reduced fees, in concert with the House, S. 3960 gives the USPTO director the authority to waive punitive penalties when a business demonstrates that it acted in good faith. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S. 3960 which will ensure that small businesses, if claiming incorrectly, have an opportunity to make right their mistake, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for the purposes of closing. Madam Speaker, we often get chastised in the House for not admitting our mistakes, but when a technical error could potentially lead to damages to the private sector, it is one of those areas I am proud to say that the Judiciary Committee is bipartisan and quick to recognize. In concert with the Senate, we have done so today. Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to vote for the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this is, in fact, a good, commonsense reform that has come from the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Strong), who has shepherded this bill. At this time, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Strong) to speak on his bill.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam 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. 8666.