Sara Jacobs

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Madam Chair, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Unauthorized entry on a military defense installation property or National Defense Area is already illegal under Federal law, and there is no need to make it a felony. This is something that actually happens all the time in San Diego because our military bases are literally right in the middle of neighborhoods, and to be honest, there is not great signage. In fact, many military bases do not have obvious or well-marked perimeters, especially in rural or desert areas. This provision would apply to DOD properties such as military housing and areas and ranges that don't have a traditional gate and often are not completely fenced off. This means that someone who is hiking or off-road driving in the vicinity of range property could find themselves in violation. On top of that, Madam Chairman, since President Trump approved the land transfer to DOD, most of the southern border is now considered an installation, making it even harder to distinguish if you are on a military base or not. We shouldn't punish people who accidentally make a wrong turn, tourists who get lost, or anyone who follows bad GPS directions with a felony charge that can result in prison time, a loss of voting rights, and barriers to employment, housing, and education. Moreover, making it a general intent crime means that it would apply to anyone who voluntarily or willfully entered a military base without requiring a prosecutor to prove an actual intent to commit a crime or do harm. Law enforcement and the military already have sufficient tools to deter and respond to intrusions without felony charges, and this isn't a proportionate punishment, especially if no one is harmed. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this short-sighted amendment to protect my constituents who so proudly support our military community in San Diego.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Magaziner for championing this issue and fighting to address the malnutrition of millions of children around the world. Every year, about 45 million young children worldwide suffer from severe malnutrition. That is about one in every three children under 5 years old. Tragically, about 1 to 2 million of those children will die. Nutrition during that time is incredibly important for long-term development. It is what powers kids to grow taller, get stronger, develop their brains, and have a stronger immune system. If kids don't get the nutrition they need during this time, it literally has generational consequences. Thankfully, as Congressman Magaziner has highlighted, we have a proven treatment to save the lives of malnourished children: ready-to- use therapeutic food, or RUTF. RUTF is the go-to treatment for malnutrition in hard-to-reach areas and emergencies because it doesn't require refrigeration, preparation, or any training to deliver. It is nutrient rich, delivering essential nutrients and calories so people can recover from malnutrition quickly. Mr. Speaker, I worked at UNICEF. I have seen firsthand the power of these lifesaving treatments. I have seen that they work. I have seen how fast kids can bounce back and recover. I have seen that U.S. funding and U.S. assistance makes a difference. Unfortunately, President Trump has eliminated countless assistance programs that have kept children alive. His administration hasn't placed new orders for RUTF at Edesia Nutrition in Rhode Island, causing production to almost stop. We already knew that the promises of waivers for emergency food assistance were lies, and now we have further proof. Starving children shouldn't be political pawns, and their futures shouldn't be toyed with. Here is my message to the Trump administration: Do the right thing. Restore funding for emergency food assistance and help save the lives of children around the world.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit.

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Midnight Rules Relief Act, which would strip away the robust debate, careful deliberation, and transparency our democracy requires when considering the repeal of long-established Federal rules. I have to be honest with you, it is so funny to me that I have just heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle spend 30 minutes talking about the preeminence of Congress, about how we don't want unelected bureaucrats making these rules, when they are literally allowing an unelected Elon Musk to run roughshod over Congress' power of the purse and to literally break laws that Congress has passed and mandated. Let's talk about what the Midnight Rules Relief Act actually means in practice. It means that Republicans would dismantle important protections in areas like public safety, consumer rights, environmental conservation, data privacy, and so much more all in one fell swoop-- sometimes dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of rules that took years to develop all just smooshed together. Things like safeguards against lead in our drinking water, rigorous safety standards for baby products, antismoking measures for youth, and consumer protections from shady business practices. In one hasty move, these protections could vanish without thorough debate or transparent decisionmaking. Those Federal rules and so many more could be wiped out in the blink of an eye without substantial debate, without sufficient transparency, without allowing the American people to know why we are repealing these rules or what conflicts of interest might be at play, especially from Elon Musk. For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. My amendment would prohibit the bundling of rules related to issue areas where Elon Musk has a clear conflict of interest. With a net worth of around $400 billion, Elon Musk has many conflicts of interests. That is why he should be bound by the same disclosure requirements and ethic guidelines as all other civil servants and elected officials, but, in the meantime, my amendment would force us to consider individually any regulation that may be a conflict of interest to Elon Musk. The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Meuser). The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

Ms. JACOBS. Get ready for these lists of conflicts of interests because it is long: anything related to national security, the aerospace industry, transportation and highway safety, biomedical technology, artificial intelligence, peer-to-peer payment systems, workplace safety and workers' rights, and data privacy. It is a long list, and it is why we should keep Elon Musk far away from our government. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the text of this amendment immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

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

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, it is sadly unsurprising to me that Members of this body know next to nothing about pregnancy or abortion care, which is why we should not be the ones getting involved in these decisions in the first place. Let's clear a few things up for my colleagues. First of all, killing a baby is already illegal in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. It is called murder, and we already have criminal penalties for it. Second of all, no one--and I mean no one--goes through 8 or 9 months of pregnancy and all that comes with it, such as morning sickness, heartburn, swollen ankles, and all of the other uncomfortable and painful parts of pregnancy, and then, after 8 or 9 months of that, it is just like, no, I don't want to do this. Only 1 percent of all abortions happen at 21 weeks or later. If they do, it is because of a serious fetal abnormality or the health of the mother. If you are the one getting that news, it is heartbreaking. It is earth-shattering. The last thing families need is government to interfere with their access to care. This bill isn't based on science or reality. It is a horrible, disgusting bill.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, it is honestly hard to know where even to start with this bill. Maybe let's start with the name. This bill doesn't even come close to protecting women and girls in sports. In fact, it puts all women and girls in danger of sexual abuse. I hear my colleagues say, no, this wouldn't require genital exams. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, we have already seen an investigation like this happen at a high school in Utah. Unsurprisingly, they wrongly targeted someone who wasn't trans. If this bill is passed into law, then there are only a few ways to actually enforce it, and that is genital inspections and asking young girls very inappropriate questions about their menstrual cycles. My colleagues know that I am 35 years old, and I love talking about my period. I think it is important we talk about it. We shouldn't be making young girls answer these questions to people they don't even trust. If this bill is passed into law, then these kinds of secret investigations, shady questions, and surveillance of kids could happen all across this country. This does not protect women and girls. This only further jeopardizes their safety and security when they are playing sports. This bill is sloppy, vague, and prejudiced.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to represent San Diego, the largest military community in the country that is home to over 118,000 servicemembers and their families. I know firsthand the recent challenges to recruit and retain servicemembers in every military branch. In my community, there are so many ships that are understaffed because there just aren't enough servicemembers. Too many people aren't joining or aren't staying in the military or even recommending it as a career path to their relatives because they can't afford childcare, safe housing, or to put food on the table. I am so proud of everything we were able to get into this bill to address these challenges, but we shouldn't do anything that undermines our military recruitment, retention, and readiness. Restricting healthcare access, whether it is removing my bipartisan and bicameral provision for IVF coverage or a gender affirming care ban for dependents does exactly that. Our priorities should be supporting our servicemembers and military families who sacrifice so much for us, not making their lives any harder. That is why, sadly, I will have to vote against this year's NDAA, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an individual whose unwavering dedication to education has transformed countless lives and communities: Dr. Paul Gothold. Throughout his distinguished career, Dr. Gothold has epitomized the values of equity, inclusivity, and excellence in education, ensuring that every child has access to the opportunities they need to thrive. Dr. Gothold's journey in education began over three decades ago as a teacher, where he worked tirelessly with adjudicated, probation, and expelled youth in Los Angeles. From these early experiences, he developed a deep understanding of the challenges facing underserved communities and a steadfast commitment to addressing them. As he advanced in his career, Dr. Gothold continued to demonstrate exceptional leadership and innovation. As Superintendent of Lynwood Unified in Los Angeles, he led the district to remarkable achievements, including increasing graduation rates from 58 percent to 90 percent at all comprehensive high schools. Under his stewardship, Lynwood Unified was honored as the College Board District of the Year, a testament to its success in expanding AP participation and passage rates for underserved populations. Beyond his role as district leader, Dr. Gothold has also made a significant contributions to educator preparation and professional development. As an adjunct professor at the University of Southern California, he has mentored and coached numerous aspiring and sitting superintendents, shaping the next generation of education leaders. In 2017, Dr. Gothold assumed the role of San Diego County Superintendent, where his impact has been nothing short of transformative. His visionary leadership has led to the creation of groundbreaking initiatives and partnerships that have enriched the educational experiences of students across the county. One of Dr. Gothold's key accomplishments has been his commitment to ensuring school safety and addressing the needs of vulnerable populations. Through partnerships with the San Diego District Attorney's office, he developed county-wide school safety protocols and training to prevent human trafficking. Additionally, he spearheaded initiatives to support foster, homeless, and adjudicated youth, including the creation of innovative programs and pathways to success. Under Dr. Gothold's leadership, San Diego County has become a beacon of educational innovation and excellence. From pioneering programs in drug prevention and awareness to establishing the first HBCU satellite program in California, his initiatives have set new standards for educational equity and access. Furthermore, Dr, Gothold's dedication to equity and inclusion has been recognized through numerous awards and accolades, including the ASCD California Instructional Leadership Award and the California County Superintendents Superintendent of the Year award. His tireless advocacy for marginalized communities has earned him the respect and admiration of colleagues and stakeholders across the state and Nation. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Dr. Paul Gothold for his extraordinary contributions to education and his unwavering commitment to ensuring that every child has the opportunity to succeed. His legacy will continue to inspire generations of educators and serve as a guiding light for the pursuit of educational equity and excellence.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind this body of the incredible damage inflicted by the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. For 17 years, it was the official Federal policy to discriminate against LGBTQ+ servicemembers and prevent them from living authentically or risk being discharged. This policy wasn't only hateful and isolating, it weakened our military and failed to live up to our values. Today marks 13 years since we repealed this hateful policy, and we won't go back. We won't go back to Don't Ask, Don't Tell or the possibility of a trans service ban with the stroke of a pen or a tweet. Countless queer people serve our country bravely, they serve our country proudly, they serve our country honorably, and they should serve our country authentically, too. That is why we need to pass my Ensuring Military Readiness Not Discrimination Act to prohibit discrimination in the military and protect trans servicemembers. Our servicemembers sacrifice so much for us. They shouldn't have to sacrifice who they are.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment with Congressman Gaetz to prohibit the transfer of cluster munitions. Most U.S. allies, including almost every NATO member, have joined the Convention on Cluster Munitions, but not the United States. That is a grave mistake because these weapons maim and kill civilians indiscriminately and can be lethal indefinitely. It is reported that up to 40 percent of these weapons don't explode on impact. If they don't explode, they become literal ticking time bombs, scattering tiny bomblets that are more like landmines. Even if the dud rate is far lower than 40 percent, the risk to civilians, to children, to our moral authority is too great. In 2021, the Landmine and Cluster Munitions Monitor found that over 97 percent of casualties from cluster bomb remnants were civilians, and two-thirds of those were children. That is because these deadly weapons don't look dangerous. In fact, they look interesting to kids. They look like toys. When kids find these weapons in trees, in water, or on the ground, they often try to pick them up and can end up losing a limb or their life. No amount of guardrails for cluster munitions is enough. No amount of so-called tactical advantage is enough. It isn't enough to say the other side is doing it, so we might as well, too. It is not worth it when civilian lives are at stake. It is not worth it when our reputation is at stake. Our commitment to our core democratic values, like protecting civilians, abiding by international humanitarian law, and upholding human rights is the foundation of our reputation on the world stage, and it is what allows us to build and maintain international coalitions to make the world a better place and advance our national security goals. That is why we need to ban the transfer of these weapons. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. JACOBS. Madam Chair, as Americans, we pride ourselves on freedom, freedom to receive information and ideas from anyone and anywhere, to think freely, to speak freely, but this amendment is nothing more than censorship and a violation of our First Amendment rights, all in an effort to erase the existence of transgender and intersex people. This amendment would reinforce the negativity, hostility, discrimination, and misunderstanding that many transgender and intersex youth already experience. In 2021, 68 percent of all LGBTQ+ students surveyed by GLSEN reported feeling unsafe in their school environment due to their perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression. More than three-quarters of LGBTQ+ students report experiencing in-person verbal harassment based on their sexual orientation, gender expression, or gender at some point in the past year. Here is the fact: Attempts to erase transgender and intersex people from schools will exacerbate these challenges and increase their isolation, but it won't erase the existence of transgender and intersex people, much to some of my colleagues' dismay. Parents across the country want their children to learn in safe and affirming environments, but this amendment is an answer to a problem we don't have. It would set a dangerous precedent that politicians can censor a range of school content based on a politician's political ideologies. It is so broad that it would ban schools from teaching about a range of animals, including, for instance, clownfish, which can change their sex. So, no more ``Finding Nemo'' in DODEA schools, I guess. Schools should be focused on creating environments that support all students, including transgender and intersex students, not censoring content. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Ms. JACOBS of California

Ms. JACOBS of California. Mr. Chair, gender-affirming care is safe, effective, and medically necessary. It is supported by every major medical association in the United States representing more than 1.3 million U.S. doctors. That is why I find it incredibly concerning that many of my colleagues across the aisle choose to demonize the transgender community, but I don't think they have ever met someone who is trans. Many of them seek to restrict, deny, and disparage gender-affirming care but have never met anyone who has actually received it. Forgive me if I am not convinced by their naive talking points when this is something I know about personally. Earlier this year, my trans brother, Dylan, received gender-affirming surgery after consultations with his doctor. He will tell you, Mr. Chair, that it was life-changing, and that is the case for so many in the trans community. He will tell you, Mr. Chair, contrary to my colleague's remarks, that he knows who he is. His body just doesn't match that. Prohibiting gender-affirming care for our servicemembers not only compromises our national security, but it also hinders our recruitment and retention efforts. Trans people are about twice as likely as all adults in the U.S. to serve in the Armed Forces. Why would we want to alienate this patriotic, selfless community from serving? When servicemembers get the medical care they need, then they can focus on their mission without distraction. However, by denying servicemembers this medically necessary care, this amendment will hurt our military readiness and likely lead to servicemembers leaving the military. Our efforts to recruit would be severely weakened. This amendment isn't only bigoted, it is shortsighted and would hurt our national security. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to listen to someone who actually knows something about the trans community and gender-affirming care and oppose this amendment.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, I think we can all agree we want our military dependents to be safe and healthy. In fact, that is a crucial part of our national security. If our servicemembers are worried about their families, then they are not going to be focused on the mission that we need them to do. That is why military dependents should have access to gender- affirming care, which is safe, essential, medically necessary care that promotes the health and well-being of transgender people. Now, I highly doubt my colleagues who support this amendment know someone who has personally received gender-affirming care, let alone talked to them about their experience and about what it was like with the doctor and about how hard or easy it was to receive that care. I have. Earlier this year, my transgender brother had gender-affirming care surgery. He will tell you it has been life-changing, and it has improved his relationship with his body, his life, and his society. He will also tell you, Mr. Chair, it wasn't easy to get. That confidence and happiness that my brother has is what I want for everyone, especially those in the LGBTQ+ community who are, too often, misunderstood, judged, discriminated against, and have to hear the hateful things coming from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. However, by denying servicemembers the ability to provide medically necessary care for their children, this amendment will lead servicemembers to leave the military, and it will weaken efforts to recruit other people with trans family members to join the military. We have already seen this happen where servicemembers have had to dramatically alter their career or leave the service altogether in order to support their trans dependents. The bottom line is this: The Federal Government should not get in the middle of medical decisions, period. This amendment will be unconstitutional and will likely lead to costly litigation. We have already seen similar laws struck down in the courts for violating the equal protection clause, by denying transgender adolescents the same care that is provided to cisgender adolescents, and the bans would violate the fundamental due process rights of parents to provide best practice medical care for their children. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Ms. JACOBS

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

Ms. JACOBS. Madam Speaker, 3 years ago during my first year in Congress, I froze my eggs, which means I went through the initial stages of IVF, except that after egg retrieval, my eggs were frozen and stored. For weeks, I took hormone pills, gave myself injections, and went to the doctor for checkups. Then I had a procedure under twilight sedation to harvest my eggs. Many people use IVF if they are single or LGBTQ+, if they are older or experiencing fertility issues or have suffered multiple miscarriages, but no matter the reason for IVF, it should be a valid and viable choice for anyone. Unfortunately, IVF, like many reproductive healthcare options, is under attack in the courts and here in the Halls of Congress. Madam Speaker, 184 of my Republican colleagues have cosponsored legislation that supports ``fetal personhood'' giving embryos the same full legal rights as a person. This fringe ideology is dangerous and could be used to prosecute people for miscarriages or for having an abortion and could potentially affect access to birth control, too. It could threaten access to IVF. During IVF, doctors often create more fertilized embryos than they plan on using, because some may be genetically unviable or result in miscarriages. I have 17 mature eggs frozen. Patients like me pay for the storage of our eggs or embryos, and eventually some embryos are usually donated for medical research or destroyed. Fetal personhood legislation, and even court rulings like the one in Alabama, could force patients to pay for storage of their embryos forever or leave clinics liable to criminal charges if embryos are damaged. That is why at least one IVF clinic in Alabama is ending the service. This is just the beginning. Last week, Supreme Court Justice Alito acknowledged fetal personhood in his line of questioning in Moyle v. United States, a case that could decide the future of emergency abortion care. I say this to my Republican colleagues: You can't support fetal personhood and support IVF access. You can't falsely claim to be pro- life and then rip away people's dreams of having children, and you can't hide and try to bury your true end goal. I call on all 184 House Republicans, including Speaker Johnson, who have cosponsored legislation that would treat embryos as children and threaten access to IVF and other reproductive health services to come to the House floor and publicly remove their name from this bill, prove that they support IVF access, prove that they support families, and prove that they are not a hypocrite. Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Chula Vista Assistant Police Chief Phil Collum, a 29-year veteran of the department who we sadly lost to cancer. His service and his legacy will always be remembered. Those who knew Assistant Police Chief Collum best emphasize his empathy, his compassion, his reputation for being fair, his work ethic, and more than anything, his dedication to his community. Community was at the heart of everything Assistant Police Chief Collum did. He gave the directive in 2022 to create the Community Engagement Division to help foster community relationships--and he personally led this division. He was committed to building bridges between officers and the community they serve. Through the Community Engagement Division, he worked to make sure that the Chula Vista Police Department was actively connecting with community members including residents, students, and business owners. Assistant Police Chief Collum was also deeply involved in charity work. He volunteered at his church. He went to Tijuana every month to support orphanages and help children in need as part of the Corazon de Vida Foundation--his empathy and compassion for others on full display. And, Assistant Police Chief Collum was a true trailblazer. He was the Chula Vista Police Department's first Black lieutenant, first Black captain, and first Black assistant chief. He was also the first openly gay male officer in the department. In his own words, during an interview in 2022, Assistant Police Chief Collum said that he was proud to be a member of the LGBTQ community. He was proud to be a law enforcement officer. He was proud of his husband. He was proud of his community. And that he wanted to celebrate that. I can't think of a better way to sum up his incredible contributions to our community. He broke down barriers and was a role model for so many. Assistant Police Chief Collum is survived by his loving husband, William Lopez, and my heart is with his family, his friends, his colleagues, and our entire community as we mourn this immense loss. We will always remember Assistant Police Chief Collum.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member Nadler for his leadership on this issue. Under almost any other circumstance, law enforcement and intelligence agencies need a warrant to access our personal information. Even in the cases of utmost national security like when Americans are suspected of terrorism, espionage, or cybercrimes, our government gets a warrant. This process isn't too burdensome, and it doesn't prevent law enforcement from investigating crimes or bringing people to justice. But there are a few loopholes in this process when it comes to section 702 queries and this data broker loophole, which allows our government to circumvent our Fourth Amendment rights to access our personal information without a warrant, a court order, or even a subpoena. This is only legal because they are buying the information. But our rights shouldn't have a price, and cash shouldn't hold the same legitimacy as a warrant. Law enforcement claims--they say this, this is their claim--this loophole, this data that they buy from data brokers is most useful before probable cause can be demonstrated. That is the whole point of the Fourth Amendment, of our right to prevent unreasonable seizures and searches. If you can't establish probable cause, you shouldn't be able to access or buy this information unless a court says otherwise. That is why we need this bipartisan Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, which I am proud to co-lead. Our bill doesn't inhibit law enforcement's investigations. Instead, it ensures that police searches are above board, follow due process, and protect Americans' privacy. In a Congress where it feels almost impossible to get anything done and where the American people think all we do is disagree, this shows that we can do big things and there is a bipartisan consensus especially when it comes to Americans' privacy rights. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we are just a few days from what would have been the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, so it is sadly predictable that we are here debating a MAGA Republicans' bill that would stigmatize students who parent while in school or who seek abortion care. Now, I can't help but chuckle at the ridiculous arguments coming from the other side of the aisle, because, while I will admit that my Republican colleagues are good at naming bills, they are not good at caring for parents or kids after they are born. This so-called Pregnant Students' Rights Act ironically fails to give pregnant students any new rights. It gives them no meaningful information and support like campus childcare, family housing, or nutrition support if they choose to be pregnant or parent while in school. Instead, it provides a biased slate of options that pushes students to keep their pregnancy and raise a child, with no mention of contraception or that seeking an abortion is a viable and valid choice. Pregnant and parenting students deserve comprehensive information about their rights and the resources and support they need to thrive at school. What they don't need are lectures about their choices. They don't need obstacles to accessing abortion and the full spectrum of healthcare. They certainly don't need this condescending legislation that is more interested in advancing an anti-abortion agenda than genuinely helping students. The decisions about keeping pregnancy to term and raising a child are serious, private, and personal. Women denied an abortion are four times more likely to live below the Federal poverty line. They are more likely to be evicted, go bankrupt, or have debt. They are more likely to stay in contact with a violent partner and raise the resulting child alone. Their children's financial well-being and development are more likely to suffer, too. We shouldn't deprive students of making these informed decisions by withholding their full, comprehensive options. This bill does a disservice to pregnant and parenting students. Instead, we should focus on strengthening Title IX protections, expanding support systems for families on campus like the CCAMPIS program that has been so successful at UC San Diego, and protecting pregnant students from discrimination. I have to say that I have been in college more recently than just about anyone here, and I don't remember a single person being pressured into having an abortion. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, as the youngest Jewish Member of Congress, I know personally how hard it feels to be Jewish because I live it every day. I was in the House Chamber on January 6 when insurrectionists stormed the Capitol wearing T-shirts saying six million was not enough. I have experienced anti-Semitism my whole life: Jokes about my big nose, my fuzzy hair, being called a kike while waiting to get a drink at a bar. Anti-Semitism was on the rise before October 7, and now it is running rampant. In San Diego, we know how hateful and deadly it can be. Four years ago, we mourned a beloved community member who was killed in the Chabad of Poway, and it seems like every other week we are washing swastikas off our buildings or sidewalks. I am so grateful to President Biden for his leadership, for not politicizing our pain, and for bringing together Jewish Members to discuss a whole-of-society approach to countering anti-Semitism. We need to fully fund and implement the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism to ensure that Jewish people are safe and respected everywhere. I am committed to this work, not just for a news cycle but for life, and I hope my colleagues will join me in that effort.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank my colleagues for their unanimous support of H. Res. 793, which passed the House this week. I was proud to be an original cosponsor of this resolution, calling on Hamas to immediately release the 240 hostages taken during the horrific and inexcusable attack on Israel on October 7. In the 55 days since the attack, I have met with family members of many of the hostages. They have experienced unimaginable pain and loss but still have hope, and so do I. I am deeply grateful to President Biden and his administration for their leadership in negotiating the vitally important deal to release many of the hostages. I am relieved that 110 of them have been reunited with their loved ones, but we won't rest until every single one is home safely.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: H. Res. 846 censuring Representative Brian Mast. Whereas, Representative Brian Mast served honorably in the United States Army with distinct sacrifice, dedication, and bravery; Whereas, Representative Brian Mast has repeatedly made inflammatory statements regarding innocent Palestinian civilians in Gaza who are in harm's way through no fault of their own as a result of horrific terrorist attacks conducted by Hamas on October 7, 2023; Whereas, Representative Brian Mast 's refusal to distinguish innocent Palestinians from Hamas terrorists is false, misleading, dehumanizing, dangerous, and unbecoming of a Member of Congress; Whereas, on October 19, 2023, during a House Foreign Affairs Committee markup, Representative Brian Mast emphatically asserted that any urgently needed humanitarian aid for innocent Palestinian civilians who are in harm's way through no fault of their own ``should be slowed down'' and that there should be ``every effort made to slow down any perceived assistance''; Whereas, on October 19, 2023, during the same House Foreign Affairs Committee markup, Representative Brian Mast stated that terrorism is ``absolutely supported by the Palestinian people, from elementary school all the way up into the elderly''; Whereas, on November 1, 2023, during a speech on the House floor, Representative Brian Mast inexcusably compared innocent Palestinian civilians, including children, who are often used as human shields by Hamas terrorists, to Nazi collaborators that perpetrated the Holocaust against the Jewish people; Whereas, the horrific crime against humanity perpetrated by Nazis that resulted in the murder of more than 6 million Jews during the Holocaust should never be trivialized; Whereas, on November 1, 2023, during a speech on the House floor, Representative Brian Mast stated that ``there are very few innocent Palestinian civilians''; Whereas, on November 2, 2023, Representative Brian Mast again incorrectly conflated innocent Palestinian civilians with Hamas terrorists by tweeting a video of a Hamas leader and asserting that ``a two-state solution means making a state out of these murderous terrorists who are openly calling for the atrocities of October 7 to be committed over and over again''; Whereas, Representative Brian Mast's repeated conflation of innocent Palestinian civilians with Hamas terrorists sends a message to the world that violence against all Palestinians is legitimate and risks the incitement of brutal attacks across the Middle East region, including settler violence in the West Bank and Hezbollah aggression in northern Israel; Whereas, instances of anti-Arab hate and Islamophobia have been on the rise, including the hate-fueled murder of Wadea Al-Fayoume, a 6- year-old Palestinian American who was stabbed to death in his home in Illinois on October 15, 2023, because of his identity; and Whereas, Representative Brian Mast's comments regarding innocent Palestinian civilians in Gaza are dehumanizing, inflammatory, unacceptable, and can be reasonably construed as inviting the targeted murder of innocent Palestinians, fanning the flames of violence in the Middle East, and violating the international rules of war: Now, therefore, be it resolved that Brian Mast be censured.

Ms. JACOBS

Ms. JACOBS. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.