Darrell Issa
Representative for California · Republican · United States
“It is not for this administration, but for a 5-year period. Most importantly, it is extremely limited to private equity investing, by definition in private companies. No part of public companies are affected here, just the opposite.”
House of Representatives22 July 2026Source ↗
“Mr. Chairman, in closing, I will be brief. I am not going to address the items that were said by the opposition because they don't go to the safeguards in this piece of legislation.”
House of Representatives22 July 2026Source ↗
“Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. We are in changing times. The ongoing battles, both in Iran and in Ukraine, have taught us an important lesson. That is that large, long- term vendors for production of innovative tools don't work together. The lead time is too long.”
House of Representatives22 July 2026Source ↗
“If what you are producing for the Department of War or any other part of our government is classified, you have to say: I have a new product. I can't tell you about it. Trust me and invest. That simply doesn't work. More importantly, the requirements from within the government often are not available to the investor.”
House of Representatives22 July 2026Source ↗
“It does not preclude their being excluded for any reason, including-- and I particularly want to note this--companies which have a foreign investment profile would have to disclose and may very well be excluded.”
House of Representatives22 July 2026Source ↗
“For that reason, we are asking that the Department of War under this pilot program be empowered to allow for these nonoriginal participants to have, on a limited basis, with controls completely in the hands of the Secretary of War and while he retains full authority to revoke participation for any security violation, foreign ownership, co…”
House of Representatives22 July 2026Source ↗
The complete record
Every one of 31 lines we hold for Darrell Issa, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account.
This is not an official version of US Congress proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one US Congress publishes.
“It is not for this administration, but for a 5-year period. Most importantly, it is extremely limited to private equity investing, by definition in private companies. No part of public companies are affected here, just the opposite. {time} 1140 This is an opportunity for private companies to find investors who can only invest if they have a reasonable knowledge of what the product is asked to be and nothing more, and every one of them must still pass the same rigorous application and retention policy for whatever level of clearance is required. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that these words would help the other side understand that, in fact, Congress gains more control over many of the things being complained about by passing this amendment than by not. Mr. Chair, I urge support for my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.”
House of Representatives22 July 2026Source ↗
“Mr. Chairman, in closing, I will be brief. I am not going to address the items that were said by the opposition because they don't go to the safeguards in this piece of legislation. Without this amendment, there is nothing to stop the administration from providing, without specific requirements to disclose, classifications to any and all individuals, particularly individuals that are, quite frankly, within companies either doing or wanting to do business with the Federal Government. It doesn't stop the large companies from having unlimited access to programs that may not be widely understood. As a result, they get an advantage of bidding on something no one knows about. Instead, what it requires is annual reporting, including to this body, to Congress, to ensure that we can monitor this program. It sunsets.”
House of Representatives22 July 2026Source ↗
“For that reason, we are asking that the Department of War under this pilot program be empowered to allow for these nonoriginal participants to have, on a limited basis, with controls completely in the hands of the Secretary of War and while he retains full authority to revoke participation for any security violation, foreign ownership, control, influence, or any other concern. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.”
House of Representatives22 July 2026Source ↗
“It does not preclude their being excluded for any reason, including-- and I particularly want to note this--companies which have a foreign investment profile would have to disclose and may very well be excluded. However, the American investment community with American funds is more than sufficient to find, seek out, and invest in innovative companies that can give us a low-cost antidrone product or a low-cost drone, or any other number of critically needed and affordable products.”
House of Representatives22 July 2026Source ↗
“If what you are producing for the Department of War or any other part of our government is classified, you have to say: I have a new product. I can't tell you about it. Trust me and invest. That simply doesn't work. More importantly, the requirements from within the government often are not available to the investor. Therefore, it is difficult to get. My amendment deals with this serious problem in a predictable and controlled way. Our 5-year pilot program simply says that with the permission of the Department of War, individuals within qualified investment firms may receive or update their clearances so that they can be part of the investment decision.”
House of Representatives22 July 2026Source ↗
“Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. We are in changing times. The ongoing battles, both in Iran and in Ukraine, have taught us an important lesson. That is that large, long- term vendors for production of innovative tools don't work together. The lead time is too long. The requirement for us to innovate at the Department of War simply isn't working. We need to have small, innovative companies to be able to come forward and be given small allotments in order to develop. However, those allotments are seldom sufficient to operate a company for 1, 2, or 3 years to develop and get a contract going. For that reason, like other startups of all sorts, particularly in the technology field in America, they would normally go to private funding, go to venture firms. But there is a problem.”
House of Representatives22 July 2026Source ↗
“Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.”
House of Representatives22 July 2026Source ↗
“I thank the Speaker for noting that disparaging the President is not appropriate for this House. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and the contribution of Bill Horn, a man who gave first his service to the country in Vietnam and then went on to be one of the longest serving county supervisors in San Diego County. Bill Horn wanted more for his family, and he worked hard to do it.”
House of Representatives22 July 2026Source ↗
“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.”
House of Representatives8 April 2025Source ↗
“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.”
House of Representatives8 April 2025Source ↗
“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.”
House of Representatives8 April 2025Source ↗
“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.”
House of Representatives8 April 2025Source ↗
“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.”
House of Representatives8 April 2025Source ↗
“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.”
House of Representatives8 April 2025Source ↗
“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.”
House of Representatives8 April 2025Source ↗
“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.”
House of Representatives8 April 2025Source ↗
“Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.”
House of Representatives8 April 2025Source ↗
“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.”
House of Representatives8 April 2025Source ↗
“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.”
House of Representatives8 April 2025Source ↗
“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. {time} 1615 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.”
House of Representatives8 April 2025Source ↗
“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.”
House of Representatives8 April 2025Source ↗
“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).”
House of Representatives8 April 2025Source ↗
“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).”
House of Representatives8 April 2025Source ↗
“Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the CBO estimate for this bill. H.R. 1526, NORRA OF 2025 AS REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON MARCH 25, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ By fiscal year, millions of dollars-- ----------------------------------- 2025 2025-2030 2025-2035 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Direct Spending (Outlays)........... a a a Revenues............................ a a a Increase or Decrease (-) in the a a a Deficit............................ Spending Subject to Appropriation a a a (Outlays).......................... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ a. CBO has no basis to estimate the budgetary effects of enacting H.R. 1526.”
House of Representatives8 April 2025Source ↗
“If you can go to Hawaii because you can find a judge who will rule against an action taken here in the District of Columbia, then you will do so if you can get a nationwide injunction. If you can only enjoin individuals who may not even be affected by it, then there is no incentive to do so. Madam Speaker, there are 677 current judge positions not including those on senior status. There are 677 individuals, each of whom can exceed their authority and stymie the legitimate actions of government. In some cases, these judges have even ordered the payment of amounts when the administration has determined that there is great risk of fraud. During the last administration, they objected to this. They tried to stop it.”
House of Representatives8 April 2025Source ↗
“National injunctions are being used to halt executive actions and executive orders not just for plaintiffs before the court but across the entire country, including individuals and entities that are not even parties to the litigation and, in many cases, may not favor the outcome and would not have been willing plaintiffs. This undermines the system of government. It empowers individual, unelected judges to dictate national policy and to thwart the Constitution to take rights reserved to Congress and the President of the United States. NORRA, the No Rogue Rulings Act, puts an end to this type of abuse. Under NORRA, we reaffirm the principles that district court orders can only bind parties before the court and not nonparties across the country. This reform will also discourage the growing trend to forum shop, Madam Speaker.”
House of Representatives8 April 2025Source ↗
“These sweeping injunctions represent judicial activism at its worst. Don't just take my word for it, Madam Speaker. As late as October of last year, the Solicitor General of the Biden administration urged the end of these practices, stating that, in fact, the Biden administration has to win every time, but the opposition only has to win one out of even one dozen cases. That is exactly the problem we are facing. The Supreme Court regularly considers cases that are done in the ordinary course where one district judge, and perhaps a jury, rules one way and another rules another way, and the courts, through the appellate process, come up with a single law of the land. However, they do so looking at the arguments of both winning and losing, and they do so while the administration is not nationally and internationally banned.”
House of Representatives8 April 2025Source ↗
“The High Court of nine must reach a majority in order to make something the law of the land, and yet a single district judge believes they can make the law of the land. {time} 1530 Since President Trump has returned to office, left-leaning activists have cooperated with ideological judges whom they have sought out to take their cases and weaponized nationwide injunctions to stall dozens of lawful executive actions and initiatives. Proof of that occurred just yesterday when, by a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, yet another judge's national ban was overturned. These actions touch on many of the most critical issues facing our country, such as securing our borders, reforming insufficient and ineffective government bureaucracy, and strengthening our military. Let me be absolutely clear.”
House of Representatives8 April 2025Source ↗
“Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, in recent years it has become glaringly obvious that Federal judges are overstepping their constitutional bounds under Article III of the Constitution which applies that lower courts are created under statute by Congress. Pursuant to congressional action, district judges are limited to the plaintiff before them that has nexus in their district. Madam Speaker, in short, that means that a district judge needs to be confined to their district and to people who are in their district. Case after case, over decades, has shown that when they fail to do so, the cases are thrown out. More importantly, if they were to continue to do what is generally called nationwide injunctions, then, in fact, there would be no need for a 5-4 or 6-3 decision by the High Court.”
House of Representatives8 April 2025Source ↗
“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. 1526.”
House of Representatives8 April 2025Source ↗
“Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 294, I call up the bill (H.R. 1526) to amend title 28, United States Code, to limit the authority of district courts to provide injunctive relief, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.”
House of Representatives8 April 2025Source ↗