Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 475, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 476, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 477, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 478, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 479, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 480, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 481, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 482.

Personal Explanation

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the bill (S. 756) to reauthorize and amend the Marine Debris Act to promote international action to reduce marine debris, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 756, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, in what may very well be my last floor statement as a Member of this esteemed body, I rise in strong support of the First Step Act. The bipartisan and bicameral bill before us is a meaningful and historic criminal justice reform measure. This is also an issue that I have dedicated much of my work to as chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Nearly 4 years ago, I and former Ranking Member Conyers created the Criminal Justice Reform Initiative at the Judiciary Committee to address the significant congressional interest in criminal justice reform from Members who do and do not serve on the Judiciary Committee.

The purpose of the initiative was to develop bipartisan legislation to address several facets of the Federal criminal justice system, including overcriminalization, prison and reentry reform, sentencing reform, protecting citizens through improved criminal procedures and policing strategies, and civil asset forfeiture reform.

In addressing these issues, the committee relied on the work of the Over-

Criminalization Task Force, which held nine hearings on a variety of criminal justice topics during the 113th Congress, as well as the information provided to the committee by interested Members during the committee's listening session in June of 2015.

The work of that initiative has already yielded tremendous results. For instance, the Rapid DNA Act is helping local police departments by allowing them to submit DNA records that are generated by Rapid DNA systems outside an accredited laboratory to be uploaded to NDIS. This is important, as it can confirm or exonerate a suspect in a matter of hours instead of days or even weeks. That bill was signed into law by President Trump last year.

The Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act of 2015 promotes public safety and community health by facilitating collaboration among the criminal justice, juvenile justice, mental health treatment, and substance abuse systems to ensure those with mental illness receive the treatment and help they need. That bill became law as part of the 21st Century Cures Act.

While those two laws are incredible steps forward, the measure we have before us today is the crown jewel of criminal justice reform. The First Step Act before us today couples front end and back end reform to our criminal justice system.

Seven months ago, this body overwhelmingly passed the first iteration of the First Step Act. While it only contained back-end prison reforms, it was a very real and very important ``first step.'' During consideration of that bill, many of my colleagues voted against the measure because it did not contain any front-end sentencing reforms.

At the time, I noted that I support front-end reforms and, since then, worked with our colleagues in the Senate to ensure that they are included in the bill before us today.

On the front end, this bill makes reasonable changes to Federal law to more appropriately tailor sentences for drug offenders. It does not eliminate mandatory minimums but reduces them for certain offenders. It takes a scalpel, not a sledge hammer, to the Federal sentencing scheme.

Among other things, the bill reduces some of the harsher sentences for Federal drug offenders. It reduces the penalty for a third Federal drug offense from life imprisonment to not less than 25 years. This is a sensible change. We want to punish repeat offenders, but we do not want our Federal prisons to become nursing homes.

Importantly, this bipartisan legislation backstops these sentencing reductions by ensuring violent offenders are eligible for sentencing enhancements under the drug statutes. Congress enacted these minimum sentences 30 years ago to protect our communities from violent offenders. The bill ensures they carry out that mission.

On the back end, the First Step Act places a new focus on rehabilitation. The bill establishes a risk and needs assessment as the basis of an effective recidivism reduction program and, more importantly, an efficient and effective Federal prison sentence.

The First Step Act will incentivize prisoners to participate in evidence-based recidivism reduction programs, productive activities, and jobs that will actually reduce the risk of recidivism.

Finally, this comprehensive package contains the reauthorization of the Second Chance Act, a provision sponsored by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). This measure authorizes funding for both public and private entities, including nonprofit organizations, to evaluate and improve academic and vocational education for offenders in prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities.

Reentry is a vital component of criminal justice reform. Nearly every Federal prisoner will someday be released. We all have an interest in ensuring ex-inmates become productive members of society.

I would be remiss if I did not point out the overwhelming bipartisan support from outside interest groups that the First Step Act has received. Numerous organizations on both the left and the right have enthusiastically endorsed this bill.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chief House champions of the First Step Act, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), who, in January, will take the position of ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. He, along with the new chairman, Mr. Nadler, I hope, will continue the request for more criminal justice reform. I also want to acknowledge the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries). They worked tirelessly to advance this legislation, and both Mr. Collins and Mr. Jeffries should be applauded for their bipartisan approach to this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control the time.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 499, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 450, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 451.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to recognize a National Historic Landmark located in my hometown of Roanoke, Virginia in the Sixth Congressional District. The Hotel Roanoke & Conference Center stands at the heart of Roanoke's downtown, on a hill in the Gainsboro neighborhood where it has been located for 136 years.

Roanoke was founded as the confluence of two railroads. The Norfolk and Western Railway established the city as its hub. The N&W--now Norfolk Southern--constructed the Hotel Roanoke and opened it on Christmas Day 1882. Since then, it has welcomed men, women, and children from all walks of life to enjoy the hotel's lodging, its amenities--including its Southern cuisine, like its famous peanut soup--and just the chance to spend time in one of the city's cultural centers.

Regretfully, due to declining interest in maintaining the historic structure, the Hotel Roanoke closed on November 30, 1989. The contents of the hotel were even sold to interested buyers. Fortunately, thanks to an agreement with Virginia Tech and the desire of community leaders to redevelop the dilapidated structure, more than 2,800 people and businesses pledged the funds needed to help the Renew Roanoke effort, which raised $8 million to save the hotel from demolition.

In a partnership that included the Virginia Tech Real Estate Foundation and the City of Roanoke, the completely renovated Hotel Roanoke & Conference Center opened in April 1995. The city built a pedestrian bridge to connect the facility to the central business district, a vital connection that has contributed heavily to the rebirth of Roanoke's downtown. It's estimated in the 23 years since its reopening, the hotel and conference center has had a $558 million economic impact and has led to hundreds of millions of dollars in additional investments by a wide variety of housing interests, businesses, restaurants, and cultural amenities.

Affiliated as a Doubletree hotel from its reopening, the Hotel Roanoke & Conference recently converted to Hilton's Curio Collection. It's the latest update to take the structure known for its Tudor-style construction into a new role in Roanoke's growth. I've been blessed to enjoy countless happy occasions with family members and friends at ``the Grand Old Lady on the Hill.'' The Hotel Roanoke's 136th anniversary is just a week away. It's a fine time to celebrate not only the Christmas holidays but the contributions made by the Hotel Roanoke to the region's history and its very promising future.

Mr. Speaker, American agriculture is a dynamic part of our national economy and a significant part of our local communities. Agriculture impacts the life of every American, and it is important that this industry can continue to meet the needs of our nation.

This Farm Bill Conference Report strikes a strong balance of reforms while providing the stability that our nation's farmers and rural communities need. Over the past five years rural America has endured some of the toughest economic times seen in generations. These hardworking men and women get up every day to put food not only on their table, but yours and mine as well.

This Farm Bill provides the stability they need to run a successful business and take care of their families. It strengthens rural development initiatives and makes significant investments in rural broadband.

Additionally, while promoting sound agriculture policy this legislation legalizes the production of hemp as an agricultural commodity and removes it from the list of controlled substances. In 2017, the sale of hemp products totaled an estimated 800 million dollars in the United States, however the majority of those products were imported from China and Canada. American farmers will now be able to

take advantage of this untapped market and begin growing hemp to capitalize on its many commercial uses.

In closing, I would like to commend Chairman Conaway and his staff for their unrelenting work on this Farm Bill. It has been a privilege to fight alongside you on the House Agriculture Committee to ensure prosperity for rural America. I am proud to support this important legislation and it has been a true privilege to represent the interests of farmers from Virginia's Sixth District. I urge a yes vote

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 887) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend honorary citizenship to otherwise qualified noncitizens who enlisted in the Philippines and died while serving on active duty with the United States Armed Forces during certain periods of hostilities, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the bill (S. 3170) to amend title 18, United States Code, to make certain changes to the reporting requirement of certain service providers regarding child sexual exploitation visual depictions, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the Capitol when the first vote series was called on November 14, 2018.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 418.

Mr. Speaker, today, I recognize Douglass Bellis, Senior Counsel at the Office of Legislative Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives.

Doug passed on Monday, October 15, 2018. He was born in Penn Yan, New York, on March 25, 1947. He graduated with Honors from Cornell University in 1968 with a double major in Government and Greek and Latin Classics, Language and Literature, and received his Juris Doctor degree from the Duke University School of Law in 1971. Since then, Doug worked at the Office of Legislative Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, in Washington, D.C., rising from Assistant Counsel to Deputy Legislative Counsel and then Senior Counsel. He was universally recognized by legislative experts for his intellectually rigorous approach to legislative drafting and for his encyclopedic knowledge of court cases related to the Congress and its powers.

For almost 30 years, Doug also served as advisor to the Commonwealth Association of Legislative Counsel, consulting with foreign parliamentary bodies regarding the strengthening of their parliamentary institutions in the context of increased democratic participation in government. Since 2008, Doug also served as an Adjunct Professor at George Washington University. Throughout his life, he pursued his passionate intellectual curiosity about science, religion, philosophy, law, history and music. Doug is survived by his beloved wife Suzanne Bellis, his brother Vincent Bellis (wife Ann), his daughters Margaret English and Elizabeth Wolfe, Andrew English, Matthew English and Bradley English, and six grandchildren.

Among too many achievements to recount, Doug was responsible for codifying Title 11 of the U.S. Code consisting of the nation's bankruptcy laws, the first and only title of the U.S. Code not to originate in or go through the Law Revision Counsel's Office. Doug also worked extensively on the Federal Rules of Evidence and drafted numerous bills amending, restructuring, and improving the criminal statutes of the United States, including an ambitious, multi-year project to overhaul the federal criminal code. He drafted many articles of impeachment. Doug trained many counsels at the House Office of Legislative Counsel as well as countless Committee staff.

As Judge Robert A. Katzmann, Chief Judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit wrote, Doug ``was a firm believer in the importance of dialogue between the courts and Congress, someone who believed that with improved communication, understanding and proper care, that government could be made to work better.'' Judge Katzmann came to know Doug through their work on a Governance Institute project whereby statutory opinions of the courts of appeals, identifying issues of possible interest to Congress, were sent to Congress for its information and consideration. Doug was a champion for the project for the last quarter century and he outlined his views in an essay published in 1997 in the Georgetown Law Journal entitled ``A View from the House of Representatives.'' In 2008, Doug wrote an article on Congressional drafting conventions for the Federal Judicial Center entitled ``Statutory Structure and Legislative Drafting Conventions: A Primer for Judges,'' a guide to be used by judges for clarification of intent, which is still used today. In 2011, Doug authored ``The Role and Efficacy of Legislative Drafting in the United States: An Update on the American Drafting Process'' for the Commonwealth Association of Legislative Counsel. In it, he wrote ``Like the classic Puritan, the legislative counsel must be in this world, that is the world of politics, and yet not of it, in order to be effective. . . . So the legislative counsel is outside of the political process, and as scrupulously neutral as humanly possible, yet acutely aware of the political concerns of the politicians the legislative counsel works with.''

Doug, describing the more day-to-day details of his professional role, wrote a few years ago, ``With the Judiciary Committee, I continued to do criminal law and procedure and civil procedure, bankruptcy, civil and constitutional rights (including various hot button topics like abortion and guns), judgeships, some grant programs, and a miscellany of things like resolutions of inquiry and committee subpoenas . . . I also had the Railroad Retirement and Railroad Unemployment acts, which were under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee and were heating up, leading eventually to a total rewrite of the Railroad Retirement Act and the addition of a somewhat complex experience rating scheme for `contributions' under the Railroad Unemployment Act. I worked on a number of Voting Rights bill extensions and other civil rights matters starting in the mid to late 70's.''

For decades, Doug worked with, or was familiar to, virtually the entire House Judiciary Committee staff, many of whom he could count as friends. Paul Taylor, the Chief Counsel of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, said the following of Doug: ``In his career, Doug was a spirited polymath. He had an opinion on everything, and it was an educated opinion. He was fluent in history, philosophy, law, and religion. He was a master of grammar who knew how to corral the most unwieldy legal concepts in the clearest and most concise terms. Doug worked wonderfully with a wide range of personalities. His calm, professorial manner was a solid rudder that kept the text of legislation on technical course through all manner of seas and crew. In his friendships, Doug was a consummate host, serving time-tested advice and ideas along with classic cocktails at

his wonderful dinners, which were more like Enlightenment-inspired salons. When he spoke of life, he often used the examples of his wonderful children who have led such eclectic lives, and of his loving wife Suzanne, a gifted and celebrated nurse whose devoted care so eased his passing. And when he spoke of law, he cited Samuel von Pufendorf as much as John Marshall. He was familiar with legal giants who may be unfamiliar to many today, but whose legal principles breathe life into law. And Doug loved the law. He understood its history and structure, and its role in shaping the duties of both legislators drafting statutes and citizens living under them. He kept with him the spirit that governed when he first joined the House Legislative Counsel's Office, a time when legislative counsels worked more directly with Members, away from the cameras, to engage in robust debates that plumbed fathoms deeper and miles wider than today's media often allows.''

Doug lived a full, appreciative life, with the understanding that the good life is a moral one. He was also a devout poet. He penned these lines, which were printed for his memorial service:

What good God gives to us we dimly know

While guile besets our fates and tempests brood

While ignorance still reigns and harsh winds blow;

Where envy breeds in brackish waters' flood,

We sink beneath the waves and gasp for air.

Yet unseen pipers dart upon the sand,

And still bright Sun illuminates Ocean's lair

And bold strong waves still seek th'untested land.

For grace that knows no limits us pursues,

And gathers us within God's loving arms,

Surprises us with what we cannot lose,

And brings us strange but not uncertain charms.

What love God has for us we can but feel,

So too our love by loving prints its seal.

--Douglass Bellis

It is with the utmost respect, and on behalf of generations of committee Members and staff, that we include in the Record this tribute in memory of Douglass Bellis.

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the hard work of both Judiciary Committee staffs, a formal conference to resolve the differences between H.R. 5447 and S. 2823 was unnecessary. On behalf of the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, I have posted to the House Judiciary Committee website an amended background and section by section that would have been included in the official Conference Report to H.R. 1551 had the bill been subject to a formal conference committee. This document can be found at https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Music- Modernization-Act.pdf.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the House of Representatives voted to send legislation to the President to bring early 20th Century music laws for the analog era into the 21st Century digital era. This legislation is the culmination of years of effort by industry stakeholders, Members of the House and Senate, public interest groups, and others.

Several years ago, I launched a comprehensive review of our nation's copyright laws. The House Judiciary Committee held dozens of hearings, heard from over a hundred witnesses, and traveled to multiple cities across the country to hear directly from stakeholders who use these laws. This review provided the foundation upon which several bills to reform our copyrights laws were constructed. During the course of this review, we learned that our music licensing laws were broken. The laws were no longer working as intended for songwriters, artists and creators, or for the companies that deliver the music in innovative ways to consumers.

After this review, I challenged the industry to put their differences aside and to come together to create a unified reform bill, and to their credit, they delivered. This legislation has the support of songwriters, musical works copyright owners, digital music providers, individual artists, sound recording copyright owners, artist guilds, and performing rights organizations.

The reasons for such widespread support are clear. This legislation boosts payments for copyright owners and artists while reducing litigation costs for all parties; streamlines rights clearance for music delivery services; allows songwriters to help determine how their royalties are collected and allocated; protects the works of recording artists who created pre-1972 recordings; ensures sound engineers, mixers, and producers get paid; and gives the public more access to more music. This legislation will truly usher in a new era for music creators, distributors and consumers.

However, today, I want to take a minute to thank and highlight the work of several of my colleagues who were indispensable leaders in making this new era possible. Big pieces of

legislation can come together only through the efforts of many who are willing to invest their time to make change happen.

First, I want to thank Representatives Doug Collins and Hakeem Jeffries. They were the leaders who took a very fractured music community, got their hands dirty, and forged the consensus and framework for reforming the Section 115 mechanical license for musical works. For a hundred years, our mechanical licensing laws were based on the technology of the piano roll. Through the diligent work of these Members, it will now reflect the digital realities of the 21st Century.

In addition, I would like to thank IP Subcommittee Chairman Darrell Issa and Full Committee Ranking Member Jerry Nadler for their leadership on behalf of sound recording artists to secure protection for artists who recorded works before 1972. For decades, some artists could receive compensation for their recordings while others could not, based solely on an arbitrary date. That was not fair. We have now fixed that thanks to the leadership of these Members.

I would also like to thank Representatives Joe Crowley and Tom Rooney for their leadership on behalf of producers, mixers, and sound engineers. Thanks to their hard work, these technical artists will also receive compensation for their contributions to musical works.

I would like to thank Ranking Member Conyers for his leadership on these issues over many years, and for his willingness to partner with me in orchestrating the Committee's multi-year Copyright Review. And I want to thank Ranking Member Nadler for his work on all of these issues and for his willingness to partner with me in combining all of these important pieces--and others--together into a comprehensive and consensus music licensing reform package that is now awaiting the President's signature.

Additionally, I would like to thank Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, and Senator Orrin Hatch for shepherding the legislation through the Senate. I appreciate their leadership and willingness to work across chambers and across party lines.

Of course, I, and all the Members who led this effort, owe a debt of gratitude to our staffs. The staff of the House Judiciary Committee, both Majority and Minority, and the personal staffs of the Members, worked overtime for days, weeks, months and years to help us achieve this victory. We could not have done this without them.

The result of all this work by Members, staff, and stakeholders from every corner is nothing less than a new era for music. One that continues our nation's long commitment to incentivize creators and distributors to bring us the sound tracks of our lives.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1077, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 1071) recognizing that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H. Res. 1071.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, which expresses the official position of the United States House of Representatives regarding the sanctity of the vote in our Federal system.

The authors of America's founding documents extolled the necessity of voting to a free society. Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, believed that ``should things go wrong at any time, the people will set them to rights by the peaceable exercise of their elective rights.''

Jefferson also believed that ``the elective franchise, if guarded as the ark of our safety, will peaceably dissipate all combinations to subvert a constitution dictated by the wisdom, and resting on the will of the people.''

James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution and contributor to the Federalist Papers said at the Constitutional Convention that he ``considered the popular election of one branch of the national legislature as essential to every plan of free government,'' and ``that the great fabric to be raised would be more stable and durable, if it should rest on the solid foundation of the people themselves.''

Madison continued that: ``Under every view of the subject, it seems indispensable that the mass of citizens should not be without a voice in making the laws which they are to obey, and in choosing the magistrates who are to administer them.''

Alexander Hamilton, another contributor to the Federalist Papers, wrote that: ``A share in the sovereignty of the state, which is exercised by the citizens at large, in voting at elections is one of the most important rights of the subject, and in a republic ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law.''

John Jay, the third and final contributor to the Federalist Papers believed: ``The Americans are the first people whom Heaven has favored with an opportunity of deliberating upon and choosing the forms of government under which they should live.''

The Constitution prohibits discrimination in voting based on race, sex, poll taxes, and age. The sanctity of the vote is also part of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the subject.

In the landmark case of Reynolds v. Sims, the Supreme Court stated: ``The right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of a weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.''

Voting is fundamental to a functioning democracy, and it is of paramount importance that the United States maintain the legitimacy of its elections and protect them from undue interference, including foreign threats and illegal voting.

While the Constitution allows States and localities to grant noncitizens the right to vote in non-Federal elections, citizenship today denotes an association with America which uniquely encourages voting in furtherance of the well-being of other Americans and the sovereign nation to which they owe their allegiance.

Consequently, it is very concerning to me that some localities have extended to noncitizens the right to vote in certain non-Federal elections, including school board elections.

Extending voting rights to those who are not lawfully present in the United States acts as another incentive for foreign nationals to come to the United States illegally and stay. Instead of helping deter illegal behavior, jurisdictions such as San Francisco continue to implement policies that encourage such behavior. They do so to the detriment of U.S. citizens and legal immigrants alike.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for introducing this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader and chief author of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very straightforward resolution that every Member of this House can and should vote for. It simply says: ``Resolved, that the House of Representatives recognizes that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.''

When a United States citizen registers and votes, they expect their vote to be a full vote that counts. When someone who is not lawfully present in the United States is allowed to go into a polling place and vote, they dilute the votes of the United States citizens who are voting in that same election.

Why not recognize that? Why not discourage that? Why not call it exactly what it is? The House of Representatives recognizes that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens. It is a very straightforward resolution. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the bill (S. 2559) to amend title 17, United States Code, to implement the Marrakesh Treaty, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 2946) to amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify the meaning of the terms ``act of war'' and ``blocked asset'', and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Daikin Corporation and its North American ``Konwakai,'' which is celebrating its tenth annual meeting this year. Daikin, the world's largest air conditioning company, produces commercial chillers at the Daikin Applied Staunton Facility in Verona, which I represent in Virginia's Sixth Congressional District. There are more than 500 people who work at the plant. They are among the 15,000 employees Daikin employs in the United States.

Daikin, which is based in Osaka, Japan, hosts the Konwakais around the world as a way to bring the company's leaders together with leaders in academia and experts in the industry to discuss the future of the HVAC industry and indoor air quality.

I am happy to recognize Mr. Yasushi Yamada, a Senior Executive Officer with Daikin. He launched the first North American Konwakai ten years ago. Mr. Yamada's leadership has produced ten gatherings of the group in various locations in the United States and other countries. The two-day conferences have resulted in important discussions about energy efficiency and even internet-of-things-connected products in Daikin's diversified global portfolio.

I wish Mr. Yamada and the folks attending Daikin's tenth annual North American ``Konwakai'' a productive meeting. I trust the get-together will result in important attention to advances in the air conditioning sector, leading to the creation of additional jobs in facilities like the one in Verona, Virginia and improvements in indoor air quality.