Darrell Issa

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair and ranking member for bringing this bill here today. Mr. Speaker, as Californians, our relationship with our Tribes and bands is different from that of many other places in the United States. The Kumeyaay Indians, including the Jamul band, were landless for decade after decade after decade. In fact, if not for the generosity of one landowner who allowed some of the Jamul Indians to get the 6 acres that they originally placed in trust, they might still be landless. Those 6 acres were all they had to live on, and it wasn't enough for the various members because, unlike some immigrants, Native Americans lived here for thousands of years, and in those 13,000 years, they built a bond that could not be broken by the Spaniards and could not be broken by America as we annexed California. In fact, as a landless Tribe, the Kumeyaay continued to practice their language and traditions even though they had to do so on whatever land they could find, usually not their own. Since the 1980s, the Jamul band of Kumeyaay Indians has, in fact, clung to those 6 acres and amassed an ability to find additional plots of land. It is ironic that one of the pieces of land we are considering today is, in fact, where they have been buried for more than 100 years, where they practice their Western faith taught to them by the Spaniards there on their land. The other piece contains a farmhouse. It is a farmhouse where those Jamul Indians came to work in the fields of another man for decades. They have had the opportunity to buy that land now. Many will say: But is there a conflict? Is there a reason for the Department of the Interior to take so long? I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no conflict about taking a cemetery where your dead are buried, or at least there shouldn't be. The other piece of land was entitled by the County of San Diego to have more than twice as many homes on it as there are Jamul Indians. In fact, their intention is to preserve that farmhouse for all generations so that they can understand what life was like in San Diego County 100 years ago and so that their Tribal members will continue to celebrate those who treated them well when they had no land and no money. Today, hopefully, we will put land in trust, but we will also celebrate the resilience of the Native Americans of California who stayed in the land of their birth even though they had their land taken from them for more than 600 years.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record a letter which my lead Democratic cosponsor, Mr. Costa, and I received from the U.S. Travel Association expressing the support of the travel industry for the passage of the Passport System Reform and Backlog Prevention Act: March 18, 2024. Hon. Darrell Issa, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Jim Costa, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representatives Issa and Costa: On behalf of the U.S. Travel Association (U.S. Travel), which represents all segments of America's travel industry, I am writing to express our strong support for H.R. 6610, the Passport System Reform and Backlog Prevention Act, which is a bipartisan measure that calls for the modernization of the State Department's passport processing capabilities. H.R. 6610 provides a much-needed framework for meeting the Department's commitment to improve efficiency, security, and customer experience within the passport application process. As you know, America's travel industry plays a vital role in our Nation's economy, contributing significantly to revenue generation and job creation across all 50 states and territories. U.S. Travel's mission is to increase travel to and within the United States, and H.R. 6610 aligns with that mission. As the travel sector continues to recover from the pandemic, there is an urgent need to modernize that travel experience, improve travel IT infrastructure, and position the Department to meet increased demand for passports. In 2022 and 2023, the Department received a record-breaking number of passport applications driven by the surge in U.S. traveler demand for international trips, thereby causing a massive and persistent backlog in average processing times. While there has been modest improvement in passport processing times since last summer, more needs to be done to bring about sustained progress. Significant improvements in both passport and visa processing times can be readily achieved through the long-overdue modernization of the Bureau of Consular Affairs' outdated IT systems. The legacy systems relied upon by Consular Affairs have significantly hindered the agency's ability to keep pace with demand and disrupted the travel experiences of millions of Americans each year. Accordingly, the modernization of IT infrastructure should be treated as a critical priority for delivering streamlined customer experience for passport and visa applicants, while ensuring the accuracy and security of those functions. This modernization initiative also aligns with broader efforts to promote international travel and strengthen diplomatic relations. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, it is essential for the United States to maintain a robust and efficient passport system that facilitates the movement of people and fosters a travel sector that drives economic growth and job creation. The U.S. Travel Association commends your bipartisan leadership in introducing H.R. 6610 and looks forward to working alongside you to advocate for its passage. Sincerely, Tori Emerson Barnes, Executive Vice President, Public Affairs and Policy.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I will try not to take more time than is necessary for a bipartisan bill that has broad support, but I do rise today in support of H.R. 6610, the Passport System Reform and Backlog Prevention Act. I became the author of this bill not in the usual way as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but actually as a man who has three constituent service personnel who spend a great deal of their time dealing with the fact that when a backlog becomes pervasive, what ends up happening is every passport renewal becomes an emergency, and it becomes an expedited payment. It becomes, in short, a problem that should not have happened. We certainly understand that during COVID there were a number of problems. One of them was the State Department had never prepared for being able to, in any remote way, process passports. So during that time, the backlog became understandably immense. Be that as it may, in the several years since COVID has passed, the backlog has continued, and it has never reached an acceptable point for the American people. Even today, Mr. Speaker, when you surrender a passport for renewal, you have no idea whether it will be weeks or even months before you get one. Most people are advised to pay the expedited fee. In fact, the expedited fee seldom gives them the speed that was intended. We have talked to several countries, if you will, not necessarily our peers, but countries that have the same challenges we have. Britain, Japan, and Australia routinely reauthorize within a matter of days while we take a 5- to 8-week turnaround. That is unacceptable. We are the country that effectively created the computer, created automation, and created the ability for something as mundane as adding a new picture to a previously issued passport. We should and could beat this. The modernization is the first since the days of the early modem, the item that made sound and certainly could transport only a small amount of information. Congressional intervention is needed. The State Department understands that, and for that reason, we have five basic principles in this, the most important of which is that we ask for private-sector techniques to be used and, in fact, for the State Department to work with the private sector that is more than capable of creating a faster system. In fact, some American companies are processing passports for other countries.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, this is so frustrating because today we are, in fact, impeaching upon. We are impeaching upon for the President. The Secretary is being impeached for what he did wrong. He is, in fact, guilty as alleged, but, in fact, he is just part of the high crimes and misdemeanors of the President of the United States. It was the President's decision to, in fact, undo policies that were working, to reverse, to make a systemic change that in my district, with over 55 miles of Mexican border, my border agents are reduced to being Uber drivers for everyone coming over the border. I am perfectly willing to listen to people say that this is a policy difference, but it is not. To faithfully execute the mission, you can have differences in how to do it. To thwart the very execution of that mission, which Secretary Mayorkas has done, is, in fact, an impeachable offense. I have some sympathy for him because I believe he is just obeying the orders of his boss, but that has been said before. That excuse has been used. The fact is, he took an oath. He must faithfully execute that oath. If he cannot, because the President will not let him do it, then he needs to resign. As we impeach the first Cabinet officer in well over 100 years, the fact is, he should have resigned rather than to do things which were adverse to the Constitution, adverse to his oath, but upon the orders and duty of the President. The President can be wrong. The President can order high crimes and misdemeanors. The President can be guilty of them. This President is, in fact, guilty of that which we are impeaching the Secretary for today, but so is the Secretary, and for that reason, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize and celebrate the life and accomplishments of Karen Roseberry, who passed away on January 12, 2024. Mrs. Roseberry devoted her life to public service: in the classroom, health clinics, and political arenas. She was a highly-regarded educator, teaching hundreds of students over a nearly ten-year span. Mrs. Roseberry also served as an advisor to several candidates running for public office. Mrs. Roseberry's passion for helping others was demonstrated through her time as Executive Director of the Women's Resource Center in Lancaster, California, which offered counseling, testing, and spiritual support for expectant mothers and fathers. Her tireless dedication to protecting the health and welfare of the unborn was illuminated through her work on the California Prolife Council, most recently serving as Vice President. Mrs. Roseberry's years of service left a lasting impact on Southern California--and the entire state--that will be admired and modeled for future leaders to reproduce. While we mourn the loss of an extraordinary leader in our community, we can find joy in the fact that Mrs. Roseberry's legacy will continue to enrich the lives of Californians to come.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, today I take a moment to recognize Army Captain Kirk R. Proctor, Jr., an exceptional Officer, leader and public servant. Cpt. Proctor has concluded a year as a member of my legislative team, and within this duration, he has made a real impact on a multitude of defense, national security, and foreign affairs policy initiatives. His on-the-ground perspective bolstered by my team's analysis--from how the industrial base ties into the operational force, to explaining the evolution of military medicine, and how readiness initiatives intersect with military family quality of life. Furthermore, Cpt. Proctor has inspired colleagues to learn more about the defense industry through his application of institutional knowledge and hard- earned experiences. Cpt. Proctor's unwavering dedication to my office and contributions to Congress have not gone unnoticed. His commitment to the American people and passion for public service is admirable, and I hope he is offered the most unique opportunities and enriching assignments as he continues his career as an Army Officer. I wish Cpt. Proctor and his wife Sabia the best of luck as he begins his next assignment as a legislative liaison, and I look forward to seeing him lead in the years to come. On behalf of the U.S. Congress and a grateful Nation, I extend my deepest appreciation to Captain Kirk R. Proctor, Jr., and I congratulate him as he continues a career of public service within the U.S. Army and to our Nation.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, recognizing and safeguarding intellectual property rights is a vital interest for the United States and a critical component of our leadership, which has historically championed strong IP rights. Consistent and strong IP rights ensure that business will seek to innovate in the U.S. and enjoy the protections granted under our Constitution and laws. It goes without saying that strong IP protections require that the government respect IP ownership and the right of IP owners to control who exercises their rights. Similarly obvious is that the government should not condone IP theft. That is exactly what has happened with the trademarks stolen by the Communist government of Cuba. As if oppressing and brutalizing the Cuban people was not enough, the Castro regime also stole IP from legitimate owners during its vicious takeover of Cuba. This included stealing valuable trademarks, such as ``Havana Club,'' from the Arechabala family. The Arechabala family for years invested their time and resources building a world-renowned brand for their rum only to have the Communists steal it along with the rest of their property, including all of their production facilities. The Castro regime then embarked on decades of exploiting that IP, manufacturing and exporting rum using the ``Havana Club'' trademark they stole. The Arechabala family never recovered from what happened to them, but they transferred their rightful interests in their trademarks to the Bacardi family and company in the U.S. As a world leader when it comes to IP rights, it should be clear that the U.S. government would side with Bacardi in a dispute between them and the Castro regime over these trademarks. But in 2016, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, recognized the Cuban regime's claim on the ``Havana Club'' trademark even though it was stolen by the Cuban regime. That is why I introduced this bill, which prohibits the executive branch from recognizing, enforcing, or validating any trademark used in connection with a business or assets that were confiscated without the consent of the original owner or successor-in-interest. I was delighted to be joined by my Democratic colleague, Ms. Wasserman Schultz of Florida, in introducing it, and the bill has since been cosponsored by 17 other Members from both parties on the way to being overwhelmingly approved by the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis. We all agree that the U.S. government should not reward those who would steal and exploit trademarks, or any other IP, without the consent of the legitimate owners. Allowing Cuba to propagate its misappropriation of IP also sets a harmful precedent for international IP protections. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1505) to modify the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial names, as amended.

Mr. ISSA. 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.R. 1505.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is hard for the American people to believe, but it is true that foreign actors--foreign countries--have, in fact, stolen trademarks, absconded with the actual factories and the ability to produce various items and then had the gall to, in fact, use American law to sell America products that they in reality had already stolen. This is no more truer than in the case of the communist nation of Cuba. Under Fidel Castro, Cuba took everything. They took Coca-Cola. They took every possible item they could take, and then they took trade names. In some cases, like Coca-Cola, Coke continued to be produced in the United States, so it had no rights. In the case of Bacardi, Bacardi moved to Puerto Rico and began making it there and selling it in the United States. In the case of, for example, Havana Club, they found themselves without any factories, so they worked together with other producers to continue their brand. While their brand was, in fact, being produced in America, the Castro regime--and now the Cuban Government--continued to apply year after year until eventually, due to what we would consider to be a wrongful act by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, awarded this country, who had stolen and still to this day uses the factories and the lands belonging to the family that produced Havana Club, they continue to sell Havana Club. Now, to make matters worse, we are only talking about the United States because most of the world, in fact, took that brand name and was able to sell it in other countries. So the family that owned worldwide rights lost all but the United States, and if not for this piece of legislation, they and others would lose even their right here. I am delighted to join with my colleague, Ms. Wasserman Schultz of Florida, to introduce this bill. It has 17 cosponsors, and it passed through the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis. We all agree that the U.S. Government should not award those who steal and exploit trademarks or any other intellectual property from its legitimate owners to then benefit from U.S. law. Allowing Cuba to propagate its misappropriations would be and is currently a travesty. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will make it very clear, if this product's trademark becomes available to its rightful owners again, the well-known company Bacardi will, in fact, have this product on the shelves again. If it is not passed, Cuba will not be able to sell under this name. In fact, these products would be prohibited if they came from Cuba. The only purpose of Cuba trying to take this was to deny Cuban Americans the ability to sell a product that they owned before it was taken from the country. There was an injustice that occurred before many in this room were born. We can only cure that injustice now by, in fact, passing this legislation. I join with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) in urging all to vote for this bill as they have in this body, and then we will work on the people across the dome. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1105) to amend the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 to reauthorize the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 1105.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing. Mr. Speaker, much has been said, but I am going to close with just two important items. One is that there is no question at all but that this has been a good reauthorization because it calls for the accountability and the audit to find out why the backlog persists and to find ways to eliminate it. Second is its original purpose. Its original purpose, more than anything else, is very simple. There are hundreds of rapists out there, and they will continue to perpetrate their crimes until they are caught. This DNA evidence, in fact, takes rapists off the street that otherwise will be committing these crimes, violating other persons, until they are stopped. For that reason, we must reauthorize and appropriate for this legislation. It is critical that we take these evil people off the street. This is the way to do it. Mr. Speaker, I urge support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, many in this body continue to say that no words can describe the horror that the Israeli people are facing. That is not true. There are words to describe it and they have to be said. Some of those words are simply the facts, the real information that we are not seeing. One of them is that we are constantly hearing from pro- Palestinian groups that in fact you have a right to resist occupation. I have been in this body since 2001. I was in Israel under Ariel Sharon when he withdrew every single settler and every soldier from Gaza. Gaza has not been under occupation, just the opposite. When they didn't like the control they had after an election, Hamas seized, by violence, the control of Gaza, killing their fellow Palestinians. Since that time, they have been a war-making machine that has in fact been financed by Iran, equipped by Iran, and today it is Iran that owes an apology to the world, and the Palestinian people need to discount forever their association.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chair, I can only say that the gentleman from Florida is mistaken. His amendment assumes the Lebanese Armed Forces is in some sort of disarray. It is not. It is the most respected institution in Lebanon. It assumes that it has not been a good steward of the moneys it has received. It has. As a matter of fact, multiple administrations have certified that not a single piece of capital equipment has ever been lost. It assumes that somehow it is in the pocket of Hezbollah. I was in Lebanon and Israel in 2006 as Israel tried to defeat Hezbollah and did not. Since that time, we have continued to bolster the Lebanese Armed Forces to fight ISIS and other forces and to maintain a situation in which American oversight is possible, both military and civilian, because of the Lebanese Armed Forces. Lebanon is in an economic free fall, and as a result of its economic situation, there is direct aid, but that aid is not highly paid generals. As a matter of fact, if not for our aid, it would be likely that most members of the Lebanese Armed Forces would not report to their barracks. They would not have enough money for gasoline. This essential support was necessitated based on their economic downfall. We who visited Lebanon, who have seen it, and worked with both our military and our State Department stand behind the necessity and the accuracy of this support aid, and we oppose the amendment.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, in short, this is overly broad. I repeat, this is overly broad. As an American of Arab ancestry and a Christian, it would, in fact, be devastating to the Chaldean community left in Iraq. It would be devastating to the support we have. Mr. Chair, representing one of the largest Chaldean districts in the country, I meet every week with these Iraqi Christians who know that their families depend on our continued engagement. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, we are in a competition right now--it is undeniable--with a Chinese Communist Party-led country. We have been in that race for more than 40 years. Decades ago, we made a decision that engagement would change the trajectory of China. It was a fair and reasonable attempt, but throughout those years, as China has gained power, they have only gained a ruthless disregard for the norms of our planet, including those that they bid into. They claim to be a fair trader; they are not. They claimed that they would not steal technology; they did. As a matter of fact, they have ruthlessly become the largest spy organization, not just on our military and defense structures but, in fact, on our industries. It is legendary the level that they have one-sided done to. For that reason it is time for us to shift. Under the last administration, we began shifting. Under this administration we continue to recognize China as a threat. In those years since we opened up our relationship, we did a number of things as a planet, as a world, as countries. Hong Kong and Macau were voluntarily given back, each based on a promise to their host nations that they would continue to operate in a way that was consistent with the democracies that had led them. In both cases through a slow but steady change, that has been completely eroded. An old communist statement that I think bears repeating, is that when we will be hung, when capitalism will be hung, they will be hung with a rope that we sold to the communist. It is time to stop selling rope to China. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chair, earlier I attempted to quote Vladimir Lenin: The capitalist will sell the rope with which we hang them. This is exactly what we have been doing. There is another truism that came from Einstein: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome. If the administration wants to negotiate something new and bring it to us in a way in which we believe the outcome will be different, let them do it. We simply cannot continue doing the same thing for decades with currently tens of thousands of actual hits on our country by the Chinese Communist Party to steal our technology daily--something that our administrations have said. It is no longer one of those instances in which they are stealing ancient technology or they are trying to catch up. When one of our Cabinet officers recently visited China, she arrived only to find them demonstrating 5G technology and 7 nanometer chip technology in order to show us that they had stolen the technology necessary to be cutting edge in the cellular world and in chip production. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chair, in closing, every day, this administration tells us the nature of the kind of technology theft that is going on. The conclusion of this amendment is simply the result of the very statements made not by the previous administration but by the current administration, and this supports the recognition. It is time to make real change. This amendment does that. Mr. Chair, I urge support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mrs, Zinetta Marie Nassif. Mrs. Nassif was born on June 3, 1944, and lived an incredible life serving her family, community, and country. She had a passion for her loved ones and a remarkable giving spirit. Mrs. Nassif was often described as the most fun to be around at a party, as she had a keen sense for bringing people together. Her ability to connect was best exemplified during her tenure abroad with her husband, Ambassador Thomas Nassif. Mrs. Nassif served alongside her husband, Thomas Nassif, when he was Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Morocco. Mrs. Nassif's diplomatic efforts were highly regarded by those she worked with. Her commitment to public service and unwavering support for her husband made her a beloved figure in Morocco and at home in the United States. The Nassifs' legacy of service to their country will always be remembered and admired by those who knew them. On August 5, 2023, Mrs. Zinetta Marie Nassif passed away at her home in La Jolla, California. Mrs. Nassif left a noteworthy impact across the globe with her servant's heart, and her legacy will continue to inspire future generations of Americans.