Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I want to join my colleagues, especially Katie Porter who has shown exceptional leadership on this important issue, in calling on Vietnam to release Michael Nguyen and allow him to return home to his family.

Born in Vietnam, Michael left the country in 1975 and is a U.S. citizen who lives in my home state of California. Michael has lived in the United States for decades and has no criminal record. In fact, he has been an exemplary citizen. Besides being a business owner and committed family man, Michael is active in his church and his community.

In July 2018, Michael traveled to Vietnam to visit elderly family members. He had regularly gone on trips to Vietnam. This time, however, Michael was detained and imprisoned by the Vietnamese police. It was over a week before Vietnam even acknowledged Michael had been detained. Then, for nearly a year, his family, the American consulate, and concerned members of Congress were given no information about his alleged wrongdoings. Instead, despite repeated inquiries into the nature of his alleged crimes, the Vietnamese authorities kept stating that he was under investigation. It is a red flag that Michael was imprisoned for months and months without being formally charged with a crime. Making matters worse, he was not allowed to speak or see his family members, nor was he given access to an attorney.

Only recently was Michael officially indicted on the vague charge of carrying out activities against the Vietnamese government. Although Michael's trial is expected to begin later this month, his alleged transgressions are apparently still a state secret in Vietnam.

As Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, I hope to strengthen the U.S.-Vietnamese relationship. Our two countries have many common interests. Despite the scars of history, we have a burgeoning friendship. Many U.S. companies have large operations in Vietnam--including Nike, Adidas, Under Armour, Levi's, and Converse-- helping to propel Vietnam's extraordinary economic growth.

Michael's unjust imprisonment jeopardizes this progress. To avoid that outcome, the Vietnamese government should immediately release Michael and allow him to return home to his family in California. That would be a win-win outcome for the United States and Vietnam. Most importantly, it would bring an end to the unimaginable tragedy Michael's loving wife and children have had to endure over the last year.

Mr. Speaker, we spent many hours in this Chamber talking about the amendments to the appropriations bill, this combination of several appropriations bills, that we will pass later this week.

What I would like to take a minute to talk about is an amendment I didn't offer because we got the material in the base text.

Our Constitution creates a tension between Article I and Article II when it comes to the power to wage war: the Commander in Chief on the one hand versus the authority of Congress to declare war on the other.

Thomas Jefferson determined that it was necessary to get the approval of Congress before he deployed Marines to the shores of Tripoli, our first non-declared war, our first intervention in the Middle East, and a precedent that should have been followed by subsequent Presidents.

But in fact, since the days of Jefferson, on many occasions, Presidents just sent our troops in without seeking authority from Congress. That is why in 1973, in the wake of the Vietnam war, this Congress passed the War Powers Act, also known as the War Powers Resolution. It provides that the President cannot deploy for more than 60 or 90 days without an authorization to use military force.

Now, that act of 1973 is not everything it should be because it did not encompass the idea of bombing without deploying troops for periods of 60 or 90 days. It is unclear, perhaps. It is in need of revision, perhaps, but it is the only legal restraint on a President committing us to war without any approval from this Congress.

But every Attorney General since the 1970s has advised Presidents that the War Powers Act isn't actually binding on them, that a President can send unlimited troops into battle for an unlimited period for any purpose. This is not what should be, and yet many constitutional scholars agree with these provisions, with this interpretation. That is

why the provision that we have in this appropriations bill is so important.

I want to commend the subcommittee and the full committee for including in the base text the provision that says no funds shall be used in contravention of the War Powers Act. This is a provision I originally proposed as an amendment on this floor in 2011. We lost the first time, but we ultimately prevailed, and now it is part of the base text. This adds the power of the purse to enforce the War Powers Act.

I am pleased to report that Attorney General Mukasey, a Republican Attorney General, a strong advocate for Presidential power, testified before the Foreign Affairs Committee that he believes and would advise the President that they need not follow the War Powers Act but that they dare not spend a penny in contravention of the War Powers Act if this provision is included in the relevant appropriations bill. So I commend the committee for including this and assuring that any reasonable Attorney General will tell any President they must adhere to that critical 1973 act.

Cryptocurrency

Mr. Speaker, in the remaining few seconds, let me deal with another subject. Mark Zuckerberg has announced that he's going to introduce a cryptocurrency, or his plans to do so.

The effect would be to undermine our economy by reducing the importance of the U.S. dollar in international transactions and to undermine our national security by making it easier for drug dealers, terrorists, and sanctions evaders to do businesses without using the U.S. dollar.

I look forward to addressing this House further and to working in the Financial Services Committee. But it certainly concerns me that a man who has benefited like no other from the protection of the U.S. national security efforts and from the U.S. economy would undermine both in an effort to make even more billions.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for including my amendment, along with one other amendment, in this en bloc.

My amendment would transfer $500,000 from the State Department's capital investments fund and put it in the U.S. Agency for Global Media fund. This extra money would allow the USAGM to begin the process of having Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty broadcast in the Sindhi language in Pakistan.

There is, perhaps, nowhere in the world where it is more important for the United States to battle extremism and to reach out with a message of democracy and the message of the American people than Pakistan.

Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state, the only nuclear-armed state that has ever experienced a military coup, and is a nuclear-armed state with a significant problem with terrorism.

Today, the USAGM broadcasts in the Urdu language of Pakistan, which is the primary language of only 8 percent of the Pakistani population. It does not have the funds to broadcast in the Sindhi language, which would reach 40 million people.

Mr. Chair, we had hearings in the subcommittee that I chair, the Subcommittee on Asia, where we focused on this issue. Just today, the relevant Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia talked about how important it was for us to reach out to the people of Sindh, to southern Pakistan, in the language that the people actually speak in their daily lives.

Accordingly, I offer this amendment, which would provide expanded broadcasting by the entity known as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Of course, Pakistan is not in Europe, but it is reached by Radio Liberty.

In 2015, the State Department began some efforts to reach out in the Sindhi language with a website and with press releases. Now, we have to take it to the point of radio broadcasting.

Since 2001, the United States has invested $30 billion in economic security and humanitarian assistance for Pakistan. This amendment deals with only $500,000 to be invested in winning the hearts and minds of the Sindhi people.

I will point out that while this amendment would provide $500,000 for this purpose, it is my hope that, as we go through the legislative process, we can increase that amount to $1.5 million, which is the estimate that the Broadcasting Board of Governors has given me for what it would cost to have a year-round, mostly close to 24-hour Sindhi language service.

I know that amount seems low, but keep in mind that they already have most of the content since they are already doing the journalism necessary to do stories about Pakistan in the Urdu language. This would give them a chance to broadcast that same content and some other content in the Sindhi language.

Mr. Chair, I will simply say that looking at the fact that we have invested $30 billion in our relationship with Pakistan, I cannot think of a better investment than for us to provide $500,000, and, I hope, as we go through the legislative process, $1.5 million in reaching out to those who speak the Sindhi language, some 40 million people.

Madam Chair, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 258.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

Madam Speaker, the rules of the House normally provide a substantial amount of time between when members receive a proposed legislative text, and when they are called upon to vote. Ordinary process requires that before voting to add any, or subtract any language from the statutes of the United States, that a member of Congress should review the proposed legislative enactment, its implications, and whether the statutory change will actually achieve the intended purpose of the legislation.

It is not enough for a member of Congress to vote for legislation because he or she agrees with the purposes, sentiments, and rhetoric of its supporters. What matters is the actual effect of the statuary language.

The minority has adopted the tactic of announcing a motion to recommit just minutes before members are called upon to vote on it. Even when the motion to recommit is only a few pages, it may add or subtract a section of law that requires considerable analysis. It cannot be presumed that the motion to recommit will achieve its stated purpose or will not have unforeseen consequences.

If the minority is engaged in serious legislating, they would publish their proposed motion to recommit (or even publish two possible motions to recommit) at least 24 hours before we are expected to vote on final passage. Of particular concern to me is proposing legislative language and claiming that it will be helpful to strengthen the U.S.-Israel alliance. Without a few hours to study a matter, it is difficult to determine whether the statutory language will actually achieve that objective and avoid unintended consequences.

Moreover, those seriously interested in improving the U.S.-Israel alliance would share their purposed legislative texts a day or two in advance (or perhaps a week or two ahead in advance) with the members (in my case the co-chair) of the Israel Allies Caucus, and they would also share it with other members who have established their dedication to the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Pseudo-Zionists will claim to be supporting the U.S.-Israel alliance while instead weakening that alliance through partisan tactics. On occasion they will spring a supposedly pro-Israel measure for a vote just minutes after it is made available even to the most pro-Israel members in Congress.

If a measure proposed a legislative change and I have not had enough time to review its implications, and how the statutory language would dovetail with the existing statutory provisions--in such a case I must vote ``no''.

I would hope that the rules of the House would be amended so that motions to recommit must be published soon after the rule for the consideration of the underlying legislation is published.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the Chamber on Monday, June 3, 2019, Tuesday, June 4, 2019, and Wednesday, June 5, 2019. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 232; ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 233; ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 234; ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 235; ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 236; ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 237; ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 238; ``Nay'' on Roll Call No. 239; ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 240; and ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 241.

Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 220.

Madam Speaker, I rise to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the end of Sri Lanka's thirty-year long civil war. This Remembrance Day is observed to remember and mark the sacrifices made by all those who died, irrespective of their ethnicity, in the civil war.

Sadly, the hope that the end of this brutal war would usher peace in the country, and that Sri Lanka's many communities would be reconciled with each other, has not been realized. The Sri Lankan government won the war, but it has not yet won peace. The tragic Easter Sunday bombings in April and tensions between different communities thereafter are a reminder of the divisions that still exist in the country.

The current Sri Lankan government came to power in 2015 with the overwhelming support of the Tamil and Muslim communities. These communities were encouraged by this government's promise to act on allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the civil war, as outlined in the September 2015 report by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In response to this report, Sri Lanka and the United States cosponsored UN Human Rights Commission Resolution 30/1, ``Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka,'' in 2015.

Unfortunately, the Sri Lankan government has not fulfilled the commitments it made in that resolution, which, if implemented, would have promoted justice, peace, and reconciliation in the country. This year, at the Human Rights Council, Sri Lanka's government once again committed itself to reconciliation by cosponsoring Resolution 40/1, again titled ``promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka.''

I urge the Sri Lankan government to work towards implementing the provisions of the resolutions that it has cosponsored. This will help heal the deep wounds that divide various communities in Sri Lanka. It can also help Sri Lanka keep its important commitments to the international community.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk). It has been a pleasure working with him on this bill, the Building Up Independent Lives and Dreams, or BUILD, Act. He has worked hard to get this over the goal line and has worked in a collaborative and bipartisan process.

We have heard from a number of Habitat for Humanity chapters across the Nation who make more than five loans a year and are having difficulty complying with the mandatory TILA/RESPA Integrated Disclosure form. They believe it has additional costs and complexity, especially when they had previously set up their systems to deal with the old forms.

The BUILD Act is straightforward and addresses those concerns. The bill allows a bona fide nonprofit that makes zero interest rate loans, like Habitat for Humanity, the flexibility in deciding which disclosure forms to use.

They can either use the relatively new TILA/RESPA Integrated Disclosure form, or they can use the three previously required forms: the Truth in Lending form, the Good Faith Estimate form, and the HUD-1 form.

This bill is supported by Habitat for Humanity International and the National Housing Conference.

It is a narrow tweak to ensure that nonprofits offering zero percent interest loans can focus on helping people get housing rather than focus on reprogramming their system to deal with the new TILA/RESPA Integrated Disclosure form.

This bill passed our committee 53 to 0 last year. It passed this House by voice vote last year. It went over to the Senate, where the Senate did what it all too frequently does, which is nothing.

I look forward to giving the Senate another opportunity by sending this bill back to them, since it has not only overwhelming but unanimous support here in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Madam Speaker, as Chair of the Congressional Caucus on Sindh and Chairman of the Asia Subcommittee in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I have repeatedly drawn attention to the issue of forced conversions and other human rights abuses in the Sindh province of Pakistan. Today, I reiterate my concerns about the forced conversions of young Sindhi Hindu girls.

On April 29, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom released its annual report on the world's most egregious violators of religious freedom. The report noted that religious freedom in Pakistan continued to decline in 2018. The Commission also reported that ``Forced conversions of non-Muslims continued despite the passage of the Hindu Marriage Act, which recognizes Hindu family law.''

While the numbers are unclear, estimates suggest that each year, several hundred or more girls and young women are abducted, forcibly married, and converted to Islam. There were at least 1,000 cases of forced conversions of Hindu and Christian girls just in Sindh Province in 2018, according to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. The actual number is estimated to be much larger as most cases go unreported.

Pakistan's Human Rights Commission also notes that the Sindh Child Marriage Restraint Act of 2013, intended to address the issue, has not been enforced effectively. The state's response to forced marriages has been mixed, especially because the police are insensitive and indifferent in most cases. When families report their daughters as missing, this is ignored by the police. Therefore, the abducted girls remain with their abductors, where they are often coerced into silence.

The role of some religious leaders adds to the problem. Mian Mitho, a religious leader and politician, has participated in numerous conversions of young Sindhi girls. He has close connections with the army and the Prime Minister, and this has allowed him to continue his activities.

I urge Pakistan's government to more effectively address the issue of forced abductions, forced marriages, and forced religious conversions in the Sindh province.

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, September 29, 2010 I stated for the Record:

``Madam Speaker, I wish to clarify that when I cosponsor a

bill, it does not necessarily mean that I agree with every

part of it. At a minimum, my cosponsorship indicates that I

support moving the bill forward through the legislative

process, including being marked up in committee, and if sent

to the floor by the relevant committee(s), then subject to

consideration and amendment on the floor.''

Let me reiterate that 2010 statement and provide additional background.

I believe in the legislative process. I believe bills are improved during committee mark-ups and by consideration of amendments on the floor.

The effect of cosponsoring a bill is to signal to the relevant committee chair(s) that I believe the bill should be marked-up in committee, a process that may well improve the bill (and in some cases may make the bill worse). When I decide to cosponsor a bill after it has completed the committee process, I do signal to the Speaker and Rules Committee that I believe the bill should be considered on the floor, and almost always under an open rule.

Madam Speaker, I stand in solidarity with the Armenian American community in commemorating the February 1988 Sumgait Pogroms. Thirty-one years ago in the Azerbaijani town of Sumgait, peaceful Armenian residents were brutally targeted on the basis of their ethnicity and subjected to unspeakable crimes. In March 1988, The Economist reported the atrocities and documented the murder and mutilation of pregnant Armenian women and newborn babies in a maternity hospital. Other mainstream media reports from the time speak of Azerbaijani mobs hunting down Armenian families and committing murder, rape and property theft.

The Sumgait Pogroms were the beginning of an escalation of violence against the Armenian minority, with a wave of anti-Armenian violence spreading to Kirovabad in November 1988 and to Baku in January 1990, which culminated in the forcible expulsion of 390,000 Armenians from Azerbaijan and the 1991-94 war over Artsakh (the former Nagorno Karabakh).

In response to the Sumgait and Kirovabad pogroms, Nobel Prize-winning dissident, nuclear physicist and human rights activist, Andrei Sakharov, appealed to the international community to condemn the atrocities and prevent further violence by stating: ``Armenian people are again facing the threat of genocide. The events in Sumgait and Kirovabad may be its beginning. This must not be allowed to happen!'' (November 26, 1988, The New York Times)

The government of Azerbaijan must be held accountable by the international community for the pogroms committed against its minority Armenian population, and I will continue to work in Congress to shed light on and learn the lessons of such atrocities.

Mr. Speaker, I was in my office watching these tributes to the dean, and after a while I couldn't just sit there and watch. I realized this is an hour devoted to remembrances from his colleagues from Michigan, and I thank Congressman Kildee for allowing a humble Californian to participate.

America is healthier because of John Dingell. Less tobacco is smoked now than decades ago because of John Dingell. Our air is cleaner. Our water is cleaner. We are healthier, and we are closer to completely universal healthcare than we have ever been in our history because of John Dingell.

Not only is our environment healthier and our bodies are healthier, our country is healthier because of what John Dingell did to move forward the fight for civil rights in this country.

John is the dean of the Michigan delegation, but he belongs to us, too. He is the dean of the House. He is the dean of the House for all time. I doubt that any Member will ever match his record of tenure, but I know that no Member will ever match his record of accomplishment.

So we have had so many new Members come to the House this year wondering how to learn, how to be an effective Member, and how to serve their country. They could not do any better than to study the life of John Dingell in his nearly six decades of service to this country and to this House.

I am so pleased that Debbie Dingell continues to serve the district, a district served by John and John's father. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for inviting a California member and taking just a bit of his time.

Mr. Speaker, for reasons well explained by the preceding speakers, I am pleased to join in supporting this resolution and to commend Mr. Chabot for introducing it. I was pleased to introduce it along with him and along with the chair, the ranking member, and several other Members of this House.

This resolution deals with Burma, whose government chooses to call itself Myanmar, but we officially take the position that the country retains its name of Burma. This resolution calls out the Burmese military for their acts of ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya and highlights the cases of two journalists who were imprisoned for simply trying to shed light on these historic stories.

One of my priorities as ranking member of the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee has been to focus attention on the 700,000 Rohingya who have been forced to flee Burma and relocate to Bangladesh, one of the world's poorest countries.

They have not fled because they wanted to leave home. They have not fled because Bangladesh is someplace where it is easy to make a living. They have fled to refugee camps because they have no choice, for the Rohingya communities have faced widespread attacks, rapes, killings, and burning of villages, all orchestrated by the Burmese military.

Not only that, but the Burmese State takes the position that the Rohingya are not citizens of their country because they can't prove that their great-grandparents were born in the country.

So, if someone is born in Burma, their parents were born in Burma, they could even prove their grandparents were born in Burma, they are denied a Burmese passport.

Now, this resolution uses the term ``genocide,'' not a word we should throw around, but in this case it is clearly a test that has been met.

In reports by the Public International Law & Policy Group and by our own Holocaust museum, the evidence is there that the United Nations' definition of genocide has been met.

The United Nations' Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines ``genocide'' as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. That is exactly what the Burmese military is doing, and denying citizenship is just part of that effort.

This resolution sends an important message to the Burmese military, and it also focuses on two Reuters journalists who exposed the mass murder in the village of Indin. Those two journalists are Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, who were interviewing eyewitnesses to this crime. This is part of the Burmese genocide of the Rohingya.

But instead of applauding their bravery, the Burmese Government arrested them and accused them of violating the Official Secrets Act. Of course, we understand that a government that is committing genocide wants to declare that genocide to be a state secret.

And so, for that as their only crime, these two journalists have been sentenced to 7 years of hard labor in prison.

There is only one just outcome here. State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi and President Win Myint must pardon these journalists. They must acknowledge that the Burmese military is committing atrocities against the Rohingya. They must provide the Rohingya papers of citizenship.

We need to pass this resolution, hopefully unanimously, to say that genocide must be stopped and the two journalists must be released.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Royce for introducing H. Res. 1149, which recognizes the importance of our alliance with South Korea.

As ranking member of the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee and a member of the Congressional Caucus on Korea, I am pleased to cosponsor this resolution with several other Members of Congress.

The U.S. and South Korea share common values--democracy, commitment to justice--but we also share a unique bond of history. The United States military and South Korean troops fought side by side to defend the Korean Peninsula before the Armistice Agreement of 1953. Today, we continue to cooperate in order to defend the Korean Peninsula. In fact, South Korea currently hosts 28,500 American Active Duty military personnel.

Only 35 miles separate Seoul from North Korea, and when I was there with the chairman, we noticed that property values are considerably lower on the north side of Seoul than on the south side of Seoul. While we have substantial conventional forces there, no number of soldiers can deal with the biggest threat from North Korea; namely, its nuclear arsenal.

Now, I know it has been tweeted that we no longer face a nuclear threat from North Korea, would that that be so. Secretary of State Pompeo has recently stated that North Korea continues to make more fissile material, no doubt using that to make more nuclear bombs, even several every year. And satellite imagery shows that North Korea is continuing to build and expand bases for intercontinental ballistic missiles.

So we are standing shoulder to shoulder with South Korea, but we face a real threat from North Korea, and we will not be able to deal with that threat without the assistance of both South Korea and Japan.

This resolution reaffirms the need for the United States and South Korea to stand shoulder to shoulder in continuing to apply necessary economic pressure on North Korea. Toward that end, I would say that we have scaled back in substance, if not in legal form, our sanctions against North Korea, perhaps falsely believing that a few words exchanged in Singapore are a reason to do so.

Recently, we have sent a letter to the administration, a bipartisan letter urging them to sanction major Chinese banks, not just small ones, that have done business with North Korea in violation of U.S. law and U.N. sanctions.

Now, it is important also to look at the Korean American community, and I am pleased that the resolution recognizes the importance of the bridges created by the American Korean community between the United States and the Republic of Korea.

I recently led a letter urging President Trump and President Moon to make a major priority among North Korea, the United States, and South Korea allowing American citizens, some 100,000 of them, who have relatives in North Korea to at least be allowed to visit their relatives and, even before that, at least be allowed to talk to them over the phone. We must recognize the potential for the Korean American community to serve the cause of peace and to help establish a dialogue.

Again, I thank Chairman Royce for his leadership on this measure and urge its adoption.