Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for inviting me to participate today.

I actually serve on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and today we had a hearing about the conditions of the camps at the border, the conditions that the children are kept in.

We have lost six kids at the border, and I want to just highlight their names, because we need to recognize that there is a human face to the tragedy that we see; it is not just numbers.

We have Carlos Hernandez Vasquez; he was age 16. Wilmer Josue Ramirez Vasquez, age 2; Juan de Leon Gutierrez, age 16; Felipe Gomez Alonzo, age 8; and Jakelin Caal Maquin, age 7, and Mariee Juarez, age 1.

Mariee's mother actually testified in front of the committee to tell her story of what she was trying to accomplish by coming to this country and about the fear that she had as she crossed and as she was detained.

I want to remind people; a lot of people think that it is a crisis that is being created on its own. It is not. It is something that is a result of this administration's zero tolerance policy.

I want to remind people that the zero tolerance policy started because this President, as he was running for office, said that he was going to be tough on this issue, and that he would be the only one that could solve it. So what we ended up seeing is that we saw the zero tolerance policy.

And what is it? The zero tolerance policy states that anybody that crosses in between ports of entry will no longer be held civilly and administratively responsible; that they will be convicted criminally.

Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General when this policy was started to be implemented said: Zero tolerance policy shall supersede any existing policies.

And what this did is it caused people, when they are criminally convicted or being held for breach of criminal law, the parents are being separated from the kids.

Correct. And that is where we want to make sure people understand that this crisis, the separating of the children, was a direct result of this policy. It doesn't say, yeah, they will be separated. But it is that they would be--zero tolerance led to the separation. One triggered the other.

People then also try to make the argument that this happened under the Obama administration, but the Obama administration didn't do that. They were dealing with unaccompanied minors that were flowing into the country, and they had to deal with that humanitarian crisis at that moment.

So this administration has really taken a zero tolerance policy, which has had a ripple effect on capacity to handle influx, the metering issue, the Remain in Mexico issue, the separating of the kids and not keeping appropriate track of those children to make sure that they are actually returned to their parents.

And this administration, time and time again, now says that they never had a child separation policy.

And it wasn't only Secretary Nielsen. It was Kelly Anne Conway. It is a fabrication and a lie that has been repeated by the administration; and that is something that we want to call out, to make sure people understand that what is going on now is a direct result of the zero tolerance policy.

Additionally, we want to make sure that people understand that a lot of the decisions were made based on, I believe, on politics. My own personal belief was this, they wanted to seem tough, so they implemented policies without really understanding how they implement it on the ground.

I have taken tours not only of Otay Mesa, Adelanto, I went out to Victorville; I went to Tornillo, Texas, so I have been to the border quite a bit of times, a number of times.

And when you start talking to the people who are responsible for implementing these policies, the men and women who are in Customs and Border Protection, some of them are trying to do a good job. They are saying that they are being put in an impossible situation by this administration by often determining policy at a whim. And the problem is, when you are making policy not on rational decisions but on politics, then you end up with this situation, which is a big mess on the border.

I actually spent a night at the border with one of my colleagues.

Yes, at Otay Mesa. We spent the night at the Mexican side of the border, literally on the line, and we were there just to observe migrants to present themselves for asylum. They were on U.S. soil. They presented themselves. They were told that it was full. Congresswoman Barragan and I asked to see the facility. They refused to show us.

Yes, correct. Customs and Border Protection refused to let us in to see it. So the migrants sat down. We sat down with them. We got there around 1 o'clock in the afternoon, and we didn't leave until the next day, around 7 a.m. So we spent the night. It was cold. We slept on the ground.

The migrants couldn't leave the U.S. soil or the Mexican authorities would have grabbed them. So we actually got corralled, using bike racks, into kind of a cage to keep us in a certain area. Every so often, Customs and Border Patrol would wake us up to ask us who is here, how many kids, how old, but these were questions that we answered three or four times.

Correct. And what we were trying to remind them is that, by international law, by U.S. law, these migrants had a right to present themselves for asylum and then ask so that they can be processed. They ended up getting in. It was the woman who was tear- gassed at the border in that famous----

With her kids. She was one of the folks, and she asked for a credible fear asylum hearing, and she went through the process. That is why we have this process, so that we don't

end up with just a backlog at the border that is more dangerous for the kids and the migrants, and it is unnecessary under what we believe under our rule of law.

And if I can interject.

I mentioned this article in the Oversight hearing. It is actually a ProPublica article, entitled: ``Inside the Secret Border Patrol Facebook Group Where Agents Joke about Migrant Deaths and Post Sexist Memes.''

I think you make some excellent points.

One point I want to kind of talk about, this culture that is permeating Customs and Border Protection, I think that it is also based because of the leadership of this administration. The attitude of zero tolerance, as in, like: Nope, it doesn't matter what conditions you are leaving, it doesn't matter if you are fleeing violence, it doesn't matter if you are a victim of domestic abuse, you can no longer use that as a rationale for seeking asylum. That zero tolerance mentality is what is also helping drive this rotting of the culture within Customs and Border Protection.

Changing the leadership makes a difference, but as long as there is a change in the civilian leadership.

Oversight is crucial. A lot of people ask: What is the difference between Democrats and Republicans? What is the difference between you guys being in charge versus Republicans being in charge?

One of the things that I noticed when I was on Oversight in the minority from my first year, year and a half in Congress is that we couldn't call in Customs and Border Protection and ICE and the Department of Homeland Security to have a public hearing on these issues. The only hearing we had regarding the zero-tolerance policy was behind closed doors, no cameras present. I don't even believe staff was allowed in the room.

So we had to sit there and ask, and we asked enough questions to get more information about how the zero-tolerance policy worked, how it was the nitty-gritty. But if people don't hear it, the public doesn't hear their testimony, then it lacks the credibility because some people think we are making it up.

So we need not only the right kind of leadership to reform the culture, we also need to make sure that there is direct oversight by Congress, and that is our job.

I voted against the emergency supplemental because I didn't feel that

there were enough constraints on the money that was going to be sent to the agencies, that they were going to actually use it to improve the humanitarian crisis that was going on on the ground at the border region.

So we need to continue pushing that oversight, and that is what I plan on doing. I know that, under your leadership, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is doing so.

At the same time, I want to highlight another issue. People act like ICE has been around forever. We have to remind people that our system was restructured after 9/11 to make sure that we do have appropriate security at the border, at the ports of entry, through the airports, right, that we had major flaws. So reorganizing and changing and holding a bureaucracy accountable, that is the job of Congress. That is the job of everybody who gets elected.

So the idea of what should be done, I think that first we need to make sure that we are more specific on our money, make sure there is better leadership and, at the same time, never run away from our values that this country is based on immigrants and built by immigrants.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Castro makes a good point regarding the guardrails, the funding.

One of the things that I would like to point out is if this administration, this President, as he claimed, was the only one who could solve this problem, then why hasn't it been solved?

It is a bigger mess and a bigger disaster than we have ever seen, and that is resulting in these conditions on the border where people are mistreated. This culture that is becoming rotten to the core is starting to just fester. We have seen an uncounted number of children who have died.

According to Newsweek, there were no migrant children who died while in CBP custody during the final 6 years of the Obama administration. Former DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen previously admitted that it had been more than a decade since a child had died in CBP detention until December of last year when the 8-year-old Guatemalan national passed away on Christmas Eve. Since then, at least four other children have died while detained.

We are seeing this crisis get worse and worse, and my fear is that we haven't hit the bottom yet. Until Congress steps in and puts those guardrails in place, until we flex our constitutional muscle, we are going to see things deteriorating further.

Madam Speaker, I want to stress a few points.

Mr. Castro mentioned that this administration hasn't invested in aid to the Northern Triangle countries. One of the things that we need to recognize is that the zero-tolerance policy isn't working. It might feel good for hardliners to say: ``It is zero tolerance. We are not going to take it anymore. We are going to push back,'' but it is not solving the problem.

For example, the statistics show that net migration from Mexico to the United States is zero. In some instances, it has declined, where more Mexican nationals are returning to Mexico than ever before.

Why is that? Mexico still has issues regarding security, but its economy has built up more and more.

I have family members who are in Mexico, and they have no desire to move to the United States because they believe that their opportunity there is just as good as it is here.

So imagine if we want to be serious about tackling the issue of undocumented immigration to the United States, especially from Latin American countries. The way you do it is first by, of course, creating a comprehensive immigration reform here in this country but, at the same time, investing the resources and the policies that build up the economies of Latin America, thereby creating a situation where people feel that, instead of risking their lives to get here, they would rather stay at home.

That is one thing that this administration doesn't understand, but we also need to highlight for the American people. The zero-tolerance policy, the tough on undocumented immigration hasn't worked.

And they know about the conditions on the border, they know about the risk that they are taking, but they are leaving some desperate situations. So the way you make it so that they don't want to leave is that you make things better for them at home.

Some folks will say, well, that is not our responsibility; that is the responsibility of their home countries. But if you want to be a political realist about how we solve it, you have to have international aid, almost a Marshall Plan, for Latin America in order to build up their countries, their economies, their infrastructure, their training, and then make sure that we have a system here that has enough legal immigration in order for people to not try to come into this country illegally.

And we know, because of that, you have a situation where people are getting sick in these facilities, and then putting the kids and the people whose immune systems are compromised into more vulnerable positions.

We definitely have a lot of work to do, but in order to do that, we need to make sure that the American people know what is going on, to tell the story and to not let people forget about the kids who have passed away: Wilmer, Carlos, Juan, Jakelin, Felipe, and Mariee. Because if we forget, we turn away, only more kids will perish and more people will die at the border

It is our moral obligation. It doesn't matter if they are not U.S. citizens. It is our moral obligation to ensure that doesn't happen.

Madam Speaker, during Roll Call Vote number 355 on H.R. 2740, I mistakenly recorded my vote as No when I should have voted Aye.

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

Mr. Chair, I believe that the American people are well aware that this administration, the Trump administration, has taken steps to sabotage the Affordable Care Act, and now my party, the Democrats, are taking major steps to reverse it. But, as we do so, we should also address health equity.

My amendment will ensure that the ACA navigators can and should refer

Americans to community-based organizations that also address social needs tied to health outcomes.

Social factors like your ZIP Code, income, race, ethnicity, and language ability all play a major role in one's health. A good example in the communities I represent is housing and homelessness. Without adequate housing, it is hard to address people's healthcare needs.

At a recent roundtable I had with hospitals, community health centers, and other medical professionals, they made clear that homelessness profoundly impacts people's and their patients' health. Hospitals like L.A. County-USC are looking at homelessness as a health risk factor.

What does that mean? That means, when you get checked into L.A. County-USC, they not only determine do you have a family history of preexisting conditions like heart disease and hypertension, have you suffered from alcoholism, they not only consider that, but now they put on the board, right above the patient, ``Homeless.''

The reason why is that you might be able to take care of their underlying healthcare condition, but, if they end up back on the street days later, then their health outcomes will be negatively impacted.

So organizations in our communities that are not necessarily healthcare related can play a critical role in addressing healthcare outcomes.

Navigators must understand what our constituents are facing. They can meet people where they are and are well positioned to refer them to organizations that can improve that individual's long-term healthcare outcome and also reduce costs.

We know that the Trump administration is undermining ObamaCare, and we need to reverse it with this legislation. Yet, at the same time, we must improve health equity to ensure all Americans have meaningful access to care. My amendment would do just that: improve health equity, lower costs, and help Americans from all backgrounds get and stay healthy.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment.

I would like to point out that oftentimes the opposition party talks about States' rights, but when it comes to fighting for climate, cleaning up our air and our water, making sure that people can combat a climate crisis, then: Do you know what? We are going to get involved. We are going to stop these States from doing something that they have been doing.

California is a leader in combating climate change--a leader. We have reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and we are on target to implement a lot of our top goals: 100 percent renewable energy and carbon neutrality by 2045, zero-emission vehicles, and curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

I also, when I was in the State legislature, passed a law that said that more of the money from greenhouse gas emission fees must go to the most disadvantaged and the most impacted communities of climate change. That means that not only are we reducing our carbon footprint, but we are also giving resources directly back to these communities.

So let's not get in the way. Let's not stop California's progress, because it is a leader for not only the country, but the world.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Rick Phillips, Senior Director of the Pipeline Safety Enhancement Plan (PSEP) at SoCalGas, one of the nation's largest natural gas distribution companies. As the Sr. Director of PSEP, Mr. Phillips oversees a multi-year, three- billion-dollar project that advances SoCalGas' natural gas transmission. This project requires him to oversee a team of 800 contractors and manage 230 projects that range from San Diego to Visalia.

In over 35 years at Sempra Energy utilities companies (SoCalGas & SDG&E), Mr. Phillips has held various leadership roles such as Director of Engineering, Director of Supply Management, Director of Regional Operations, and Director of Underground Storage. As Program Director in IT, Mr. Phillips led a half-billion dollar IT upgrade project that made improvements to GIS, call centers, and field workforce applications.

Previously, Mr. Phillips graduated cum laude with a bachelor's degree in Engineering from UC Irvine, and he served on the UC Riverside Foundation Board of Trustees and the Industry Advisory Board for UC Riverside's Anderson School of Management.

Mr. Phillips has demonstrated tremendous leadership within his company and the 34th Congressional district through his direct involvement in community projects, and by mentoring young professionals at the Gas Company. It is leaders like him that keep paving the path for future generations to continue the positive impacts in our communities.

I ask all members to join with me in commending Mr. Phillips for his 35 years of hard work, leadership, and mentorship of young professionals at SoCalGas & SDG&E.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the March 1st Korean Independence Movement. One hundred years ago, Korea was not a free nation but lived under the rule of Japan. March 1st commemorates the start of Korea's independence movement from Japanese colonialism and 100 years ago from this day, the people of Korea united to fight for their freedom.

On March 1, 1919, a group of incredibly brave individuals banded together across the nation and declared their freedom in a proclamation of Korean Independence. These individuals started a movement that not only extended throughout the Korean peninsula, but across the world. In the struggle for freedom, many Koreans were imprisoned and killed. Today we recognize the Koreans who courageously fought to defend their home, people, and heritage.

As the Member of Congress representing California's 34th District and home to the largest Korean population in the country, I would like to recognize this significant day and all those who fought for independence. I ask all Members to join with me in celebrating the centennial of the March 1st Korean Independence Movement.

Madam Speaker, I rise today on the 116th anniversary of Korean American Day, which recognizes the first wave of Korean immigrants who arrived to the United States on January 13, 1903.

They reached our country in pursuit of the American Dream, determined to secure a better life for themselves and their families.

They served as farm workers, wage laborers, and section hands, laying the groundwork for the success of their children and future generations to come.

Today, our Nation is home to nearly 2 million Korean Americans who enrich every aspect of American life. They embody the ideals that define our country: hard work, resilience, and community spirit.

I am proud to represent the largest Korean population in the country in California's 34th Congressional District, and I am honored to reintroduce this resolution in the 116th Congress, recognizing their contribution 116 years after their arrival.

Please join me in acknowledging the generation of Korean Americans-- the dreamers, the trailblazers, and the visionaries--who have realized the American Dream and continue to inspire us all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the bold vision and stewardship of Omar Brownson during his tenure as founding Executive Director and President at River LA. Omar led efforts to transform the Los Angeles River, bringing renewed interest and a holistic approach to restoring its 51-mile expanse.

Since 2010, Omar has helped forge new partnerships that traverse public, private, and philanthropic sectors, fostering creativity and innovation. The vastness of the Los Angeles River and the diversity of the communities it connects create unique challenges that demand unique leadership. Through forward-thinking initiatives, Omar has been able to tackle these challenges through a wider lens--seeing opportunities to address inequity and climate change.

The history of the Los Angeles River is written by many and Omar has become squarely embedded in that history. Through the passionate collaboration of all those committed to its future, our children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy the beauty of this natural resource. As policy makers, advocates, and community leaders, we must all continue working together to create policies that ensure the protection and vitality of all of our planet's natural resources, including the Los Angeles River.

I ask all members to join me in commending Omar Brownson for his incredible dedication to the Los Angeles River.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, November 14, 2018, I was inadvertently detained on roll call vote 418. Had I been present to vote, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the Glassell Park Improvement Association (``GPIA'') on their 50 years of continued leadership in and dedication to making Glassell Park the vibrant and prosperous community it is today.

Founded in 1968, the GPIA was established to promote community values and improve the quality of life for residents of Glassell Park, a neighborhood located north of Dodger Stadium in Northeast Los Angeles. Today, GPIA

is one of the oldest neighborhood improvement associations in the City of Los Angeles.

The GPIA is committed to safeguarding and enhancing the quality of life for those who live, work, and play in Glassell Park. Members of the GPIA serve their community by contributing their time and energy into planting trees, hosting community clean-ups, and leading beautification projects year-round . One of the GPIA's most noteworthy projects is the planting of a small pine. Since 1968, this pine has become a centerpiece of the community.

To that end, I ask all Members to join with me in commending the Glassell Park Improvement Association for their unwavering commitment to improving this wonderful community over the past 50 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill would give inspectors general the ability to subpoena witnesses to testify. This would be a significant new authority.

Although I believe most IGs would act responsibly, it is important that we include safeguards to protect against potential abuse of this new authority.

This bill includes several such safeguards. The bill would require an IG, before issuing a subpoena, to go through two reviews.

The first review would be conducted by the Council of Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency. A panel of three council members would have to approve the subpoena before the IG could issue it.

The second review would be conducted by the attorney general, who would have the opportunity to block a subpoena if it would interfere with an ongoing investigation.

The bill attempts to strike a careful balance in granting IGs the authority to interview witnesses outside of the government while also providing these important checks against potential abuse.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that agencies should be transparent about what guidance is currently in effect for agency employees.

During committee consideration of this legislation, Democratic members raised concerns that the bill should not be used for a purpose other than simple transparency. Unfortunately, the Senate sponsor of the companion legislation was quoted as stating that the bill could be used to eliminate guidance issued during President Barack Obama's administration by making those guidance documents available for disapproval under the Congressional Review Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority for working with minority to address the concerns expressed in committee. The majority agreed to include a provision in the bill that clarifies that this bill will not be used to influence whether guidance falls under the Congressional Review Act.

The bill we are considering today states that ``Nothing in this Act may be construed to affect whether a guidance document qualifies as a rule for purposes of chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code.''

There are additional improvements I believe should be made to the bill. For example, the definition in the bill of what would be considered a guidance document remains very broad, and it is unclear about who decides what is considered a guidance document.

The bill also makes no exceptions for national security or other sensitive documents. However, I do not object to this bill moving forward, but I do hope the majority will continue to work with all Members as this legislation moves through the legislative process.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking Representative Foxx for her leadership on this important piece of legislation and working closely with me. I also want to thank the staff, who spent countless hours over the past months negotiating and drafting this legislation.

I know it might come as a surprise to see a working class progressive Member of Congress from Los Angeles working with a conservative Member from North Carolina. But with some common sense on both sides of the aisle, we can come together to solve problems facing working families across the country. So I hope that Congress can come together, as we have, to make progress.

The GREAT Act is a straightforward bill that seeks to modernize the grant reporting process by standardizing the information reported by grant recipients.

By simplifying the grant reporting process, the GREAT Act will create a more open and transparent grant process for all recipients. In Los Angeles, that means greater opportunities for organizations working to make government work better for my constituents.

When signed into law, this bill will help universities, city departments, and other organizations automate their recording costs, reduce compliance costs, and focus their energy where it belongs--on maximizing millions in Federal grants to Los Angeles to make it a more prosperous city.

By making grant reports machine readable and fully searchable, the GREAT Act will also improve the performance of the grants process and break down barriers to grants. Nonprofits and local groups will have better access to Federal grants so they can leverage funds to maximize their impact.

This bipartisan effort represents a major step toward ensuring government works as efficiently as possible for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with Representative Foxx and others to continue our bipartisan efforts to help government work better, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the GREAT Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4431. This measure would authorize agencies to pay interest on military service deposits in cases in which administrative error causes interest to be due.

Military servicemembers who transition to civilian service may elect to have past military service factored into their Federal pensions by making payments to the civilian retirement fund. These payments are intended to align with the contribution to the pension fund the employees would have made for their years of service in the military.

Unfortunately, current law requires these payments to be paid within 2 years of starting Federal service. After this date, interest is assessed on any outstanding payments. Sometimes agencies make mistakes calculating the deposit amount that is due. In these cases, it is only fair that the agencies that made the errors should pay the accrued interest. Under current law or regulation, not all agencies have the authority to pay such accrued interest. This bill would close that loophole.

I thank Representative Carter and Chairman Gowdy for working with us after committee markup to add provisions in the bill that would make similar changes to title 5 regarding the service and deposits for VISTA and Peace Corps volunteers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 4431, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5896 would address issues that arose from implementation of the 2014 version of the bill by making technical and clarifying changes. The bill would require that newly hired workers receive the basic rate of pay until they complete initial training. It would also allow workers to elect to perform 90 or 100 hours per pay period and receive premium pay above their basic rate. This would help incentivize workers to move into these important positions.

The bill would also remove the requirement that the agency limit a worker's tour of duty to control retirement benefits. In exchange, it would limit the amount of overtime treated as retirement-credible basic pay during the period used to calculate annuities.

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

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