Floor Statements

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer this amendment. In the fiscal year 2020 NDAA, I first requested a study from the Department of Defense on how the Department can best screen and prevent extremists from enlisting in our military using existing FBI and DOJ resources.

The resulting report, published in October of 2020, found that white nationalists and domestic extremists target servicemembers as ``prized recruits,'' their words, for their groups, and shared accounts of servicemembers with active ties to these organizations.

The report also included a list of seven recommendations on steps the Department can take to prevent domestic extremists from enlisting in the military.

Under the leadership of Secretary Austin, the Department has taken additional steps to combat extremism in the military. This included a 60-day stand-down and the creation of the Countering Extremist Activity Working Group to better understand the threat and offer six additional recommendations.

My amendment supports the Department's efforts to counter domestic extremism. It simply requests a formal update from the Department on the steps it has taken to complete the recommendations from the October 2020 report, and it directs the Department to complete the recommendations from the December 2021 report within 6 months of enactment of this bill.

This bill does not impose new requirements on the Department but ensures Congressional oversight of tackling the critical issue for our national security.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill does not impose new regulations. These are existing tools that the FBI and the DOD already use.

What this bill seeks to do--this is about protecting the integrity of our Armed Forces and making sure that extremists don't become enlisted individuals.

This is about protecting the service. I appreciate the ranking member's comments, but this is about ensuring accountability. This is about ensuring congressional oversight, ensuring that we protect and prepare the individuals who are entrusted to serve this country.

As a coequal branch, it is important for Congress to remain informed on the Department's actions, and this is not a unique step to conduct this type of oversight.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2543 and thank Chairwoman Waters for assembling this legislation.

I would like to highlight a critical provision of the bill, the Expanding Financial Access for Underserved Communities Act. As a former employee of a credit union, I understand that joining a credit union can provide Americans with invaluable financial opportunities.

However, unlike other depository institutions and financial services providers, not everyone in America can join a credit union. The Chairwoman's bill, and this package, help to mitigate that issue by allowing federally chartered credit unions the opportunity to apply to provide services for low-income, underserved and rural communities, where financial services are unfortunately limited to a payday lender or pawnshop. Nothing in this bill precludes any other financial services provider from serving these communities, and credit unions should not be restricted either.

I have seen firsthand the affordable and dependable services credit unions provide, and how they exist to change the lives of their members. Let us continue to work together to bring more common-sense solutions to America's unbanked.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 10th anniversary of the DACA program on June 15, 2022.

In the last decade, this program has allowed young Americans to pursue the American Dream in the only country they know to be their home. They have been able to live without fear of being separated from their families and have been able to pursue higher education and their dream jobs. They are our friends, our family members, trusted community leaders, coworkers, and fellow Americans in every way but on a piece of paper.

Madam Speaker, we need to do more. Since I have been in Congress, I have been proud to support the DACA recipients, including through introducing legislation to give them a pathway to citizenship and advocating for DACA recipients to work in Congress and across the Federal Government.

I am proud to work with my colleagues in the Hispanic Caucus to fight for immigrant communities and to urge the U.S. Senate to take up measures that the House has passed time and time again.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to follow the words of my good friend, Dr. Raul Ruiz, as we honor this towering figure from our region, the Inland Empire.

For more than 50 years, Dr. Rivera served our community as an educator, administrator, and community leader. His passing in March was felt by all of us, and it left too large of a void for just one of us to fill.

Back in 1985, our region suffered. More than half of the Latino students in our region didn't finish high school.

While others ignored the problem, Dr. Tom rolled up his sleeves as an elected school board member, as a lifelong educator. He joined with community leaders to form the Inland Empire Future Leaders Program to help these students stay in school.

As a result, more than 99 percent of the students who go through this program have graduated high school. Ninety percent have gone to college. Dr. Tom's positive influence, his beliefs in what we could become if given the opportunity, helped shape doctors, lawyers, teachers, and, yes, a couple Members of Congress.

Dr. Tom gave working-class kids like me a chance for a better life, for ourselves and for our family, and he taught us that no matter where life takes us, never lose sight of our heritage and our culture, and always give back to our community.

It is a testament to his unwavering faith in our young people that Dr. Raul Ruiz and I are standing on the House floor today. I was proud to call Dr. Tom a mentor, a friend, and importantly, a constituent. He would always ask me how my grandmother was doing. He went to school on the south side of Colton with members of my family, and he always took the time to ask how they were doing, what they were up to, how he could help them.

My thoughts go out to his wife, Dr. Lily Rivera, his children, and grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, now it is our responsibility, those of us in roles of making policy, those of us in our communities who strive to make our community a better place, it is up to us to carry his legacy forward and to lift up the next generation of Latino leaders.

Madam Speaker, I thank the vice chair for yielding time.

Madam Speaker, we have been entrusted by the American people to investigate the attempt to overturn a free and fair election. That attempt to subvert the will of the American people resulted in a deadly attack on the people in this building. But it was bigger than just 1 day of violence and destruction that resulted in the deaths of U.S. Capitol Police officers.

For weeks, various schemes were hatched by individuals, ranging from State legislators to the former President's senior aides to Members of Congress, with a singular objective: Keep Donald Trump in office.

These are the facts, Madam Speaker, facts that were backed up last week by a Federal judge, who, after reviewing some of the evidence our committee has in its possession, said, in part, ``The illegality of the plan was obvious.''

We are here today to hold two individuals involved, Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino, in contempt of Congress.

Peter Navarro has failed to comply with our investigation in any way despite the fact that he has given multiple TV interviews. In fact, Mr. Navarro appeared on television in support of the former President's failed reelection efforts, so much so that he was found to have repeatedly violated the Hatch Act.

But his political work did not stop when the election was over. We know Mr. Navarro led a call with State legislators about the efforts to convince Vice President Pence to delay election certification for 10 days. We know Mr. Navarro spoke to Steve Bannon, both during and after the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Mr. Navarro has publicly stated that he is protected by executive privilege, but he has never sought counsel, as others have, and he has not filed any case seeking relief from his responsibilities to comply with our lawful subpoena.

This is a textbook case for contempt, Madam Speaker. While I am not surprised by some of my colleagues who refuse to pull their heads out of the sand and face the facts of what really happened and continues to happen, I remain deeply concerned about what this country looks like if the perpetrators aren't held accountable.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 1037.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from New Jersey for yielding some time.

I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 1540, the REPORT Act. I first introduced the bill, as my colleague mentioned, after the 2015 attack in San Bernardino, a community that I have been proud to represent. This attack tragically took the lives of 14 people and wounded 22. If not for the work of our first responders, more innocent lives would have been lost that day.

The REPORT Act would ensure that lawmakers and law enforcement agencies are better prepared to detect, prevent, and respond to future incidents of terrorism.

If enacted, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Attorney General and the FBI, would submit this unclassified report to Congress whenever an act of domestic terrorism occurs in the United States.

By requiring the executive branch to share their findings with Congress, we, as representatives of our local communities, can act on the recommendations for changes and practices or law to prevent attacks and to protect all communities.

I appreciate my colleague from Texas talking about other incidents, and we know that incidents of mass violence continue to happen across our country, including the moment of silence that we had on the floor last evening.

If we can work together to prevent one such incident from taking place, Mr. Speaker, if both parties can unite to save one innocent life, this legislation will have been a success.

I appreciate the Homeland Security Committee staff for working to get this done, and my colleague from Texas and my colleague from New Jersey for leading this effort.

I ask my colleagues for an ``aye'' vote.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Dr. Margaret Hill, who passed away peacefully last month at the age of 81. She was, for many who knew her, the heartbeat of San Bernardino.

For 50 years, she devoted herself to ensuring all children have access to high-quality education. In 1971, she began as a high school teacher, and would go on to serve as principal, assistant superintendent for San Bernardino County, an adjunct professor and, finally, the last decade, when I have known her more as a school board member for San Bernardino City Unified.

Through all her roles, Dr. Hill never wavered in her devotion to the children of our community. Her warmth, her wisdom, and her kind spirit will be missed, but her legacy lives on in the countless lives that she touched in the classroom and in the community.

It was a privilege to know her, Madam Speaker. May she rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, legislation that would protect the right to vote and strengthen our democracy.

This week we heard President Biden, traveling to the home of our late colleague, John Lewis, rally the Nation around the need to protect and expand the right to vote.

Today, we will pass this legislation in honor of John's name. But in order to honor our colleague, we must make good on our commitment. We must pass this legislation in both Chambers without delay. We must also make clear, as President Biden did this week, that there is nothing more important--no rules or procedures--than the health of our democracy. There is far too much at stake to let tradition get in the way of real progress.

I know from my work on the committee and the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol that the concerns about the future of the American system--the consent of the governed--are well-founded.

Mr. Speaker, every Member of this body has a choice today, and the world will remember where we stood. I am proud to stand on the side of democracy, on the side of making it easier to

vote--not more difficult--and on the side of the people because the American people are with us. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and pass this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the following letters of support for the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5746.

American Federation of

Government Employees, AFL-CIO,

January 13, 2022.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Federation

of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) which represents

over 700,000 federal and District of Columbia employees I

write to urge you to pass the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis

Act which combines key provisions of the Freedom to Vote Act

and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

It is crucial for Congress to restore key provisions of the

1965 Voting Rights Act that were wrongly invalidated by the

2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision Shelby County v. Holder.

These provisions are critical to prevent state and local

governments from passing laws discriminating against voters

due to their race, ethnicity, or similar factors. Shelby

County v. Holder struck the preclearance provision of the

1965 Voting Rights Act, allowing states to implement voting

restrictions such as onerous identification requirements,

purged voter rolls, elimination of same day voting

registration, and limitations of early voting.

The fundamental right of all citizens to vote and

participate in the elections process is key to our

functioning democracy. Public servants defend and advance

this right every day through their work protecting our

environment, caring for veterans, and safeguarding our

country. Voting rights restrictions have a direct impact on

federal workers. A 2010 article in the Social Sciences

Quarterly stated that public sector voting turnout was two to

three percent higher than private sector union households.

Voters who favor a strong federal government and recognize

the contributions of the federal workforce are more likely to

show that support when they cast a ballot.

AFGE is a full and active partner in the traditional

alliance between the civil rights and workers' rights

movement. As such we are actively engaged in efforts to

protect the right to vote and to have all votes counted, in

protection against discrimination in the workplace, and

enforcement of justice everywhere.

The preclearance section of the Voting Rights Act blocked

discriminatory voting changes before implementation. Fifty-

three percent of the states covered by the preclearance

requirements imposed because of past discrimination had

passed or implemented voting restrictions that

disenfranchised tens of thousands of voters. Immediately

following the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v.

Holder, striking the preclearance provision of the Voting

Rights Act, states previously subject to preclearance (Texas,

Alabama, and North Carolina) implemented restrictive

identification requirements, purged voter rolls, eliminated

same day voting registration and limited early voting. AFGE

opposes denying the ballot to any eligible voter.

Voting rights restrictions have a direct impact on federal

workers. Statistics from the American National Election

Studies indicate that union household turnout is 5.7 percent

higher than that of nonunion households, and as noted above,

public employees vote in greater numbers. Voters who favor a

strong federal government and recognize the contributions of

the federal workforce are more likely to show that support

when they cast a ballot. Allowing new voting restrictions by

states trying to limit legitimate voters from exercising

their rights affect federal employees. These new limitations

cloaked in unsubstantiated claims of ``ballot protection''

include limiting polling places and locations for casting

early ballots, banning provision of drinking water to voters

waiting in line and imposing onerous restrictions on absentee

voting. Federal workers report for duty 24 hours a day, seven

days a week. They count on utilizing voting options to

exercise their patriotic right to vote.

AFGE calls on the House to pass the Freedom to Vote: John

R. Lewis Act. For questions, please contact Fiona Kohrman.

Sincerely,

Everett B. Kelley,

National President.

Madam Speaker, I thank the vice chair for yielding.

Last Tuesday, December 7, the select committee received a letter from Mr. Meadows' lawyer telling us that his client's appearance for a deposition had become, and I quote, ``untenable''.

Something else happened last Tuesday. Mr. Meadows' book, ``The Chief's Chief,'' hit bookstores.

This is a witness who is refusing to comply with the law and answer our questions, in part because the former President has instructed him to do so, he says. He says that as chief of staff he couldn't possibly disclose the conversations with the former President.

But look at his book, and you get more information about his confidential conversations with the former President than our committee did.

This is from a section dealing with the January 6 rally at the Ellipse. ``When he got off stage, President Trump let me know that he had been speaking metaphorically about the walk to the Capitol. He knew as well as anyone that we couldn't organize a trip like that on such short notice.''

That part is interesting because the select committee has a lot of questions about what the President said and did on January 6. We have a lot of questions about how protests that day escalated into a riot. And Mark Meadows says he can't discuss these details with us. But apparently, he can put them in his book.

We have also learned from those very documents Mr. Meadows turned over that he was willing to discuss what the President was thinking with Members of Congress.

On January 3, Mr. Meadows was exchanging text messages with a lawmaker about the pressure campaign to get State legislatures to overturn the results of the election. In one text message to a lawmaker, Mr. Meadows wrote, ``He,'' he presumably being President Trump, ``He thinks the legislatures have the power, but the VP has power, too.''

The power to do what? We could guess the power to overturn the election results, the power to reject the will of the voters. And days later a violent mob tried to get Vice President Pence to do just that. We would like to ask Mr. Meadows about that, about what the former President thought.

Days before the violent attack, Mr. Meadows was willing to share what he, President Trump, thinks, but he won't tell us.

That is why Mr. Meadows' testimony is so important. That is why his privilege claims are so outrageous, and that is why we need to adopt this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time.

Sometimes what happens in Congress is complicated. It is wrapped in parliamentary procedure and language that is hard to understand.

So let's be very clear about the legislation that we are discussing today. The Build Back Better Act is a tax cut for working families. It is an extension of the child tax credit and preschool access to help parents get back to work. It is the largest ever initiative to fight climate change. It is a tool to give every American a chance to succeed.

Passing this bill will lift children out of poverty, expand our middle class, and make healthcare more affordable. It is simple.

Madam Speaker, we need to pass this bill because the American people deserve this investment.

Madam Speaker, when an armed mob stormed the Capitol earlier this year, they did so under the belief that political violence was an acceptable means to an end. As leaders and as Members of this body, every one of us has a responsibility to stand up and to make clear that way of thinking is unacceptable.

We have a responsibility here to work together to keep our colleagues, our staff, and all of the people who work in this building safe. That goal becomes more difficult when Members are making open threats of violence on social media.

It is not acceptable for a Member of Congress to insinuate that they want to violently kill another Member, and we need to directly respond to this threat.

Today, we have an opportunity to send a strong, unified, bipartisan message against this kind of conduct.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the resolution to ensure accountability and recommit ourselves to the safety of every Member and future Member of this body.

Madam Speaker, I thank the vice chair for yielding.

Like many of my colleagues, I was right here on the House floor when the violent mob attacked our Capitol. I saw those doors shaking, nearly overrun with rioters attempting to enter. I saw my colleagues shed their jackets and roll up their sleeves preparing for the eventuality. And I saw Capitol Police acting quickly and thoughtfully to conduct a successful evacuation of Members from this Chamber. Their actions, undoubtedly, saved lives.

What we didn't know at the time was that on the steps of the Capitol, the Capitol Police and the Metro PD officers were engaged in brutal hand-to-hand combat. Officer Michael Fanone told us he was grabbed, beaten, and tased, all while being called a traitor to this country.

This is what officers dealt with to defend our democracy. Some lost their lives; many are still living with both the physical wounds and the trauma that they suffered that day. This is what our officers dealt with to defend democracy.

Officer Harry Dunn told us more than 6 months later, January 6 still isn't over for me. These officers are heroes. I want to thank the chair and the vice chair for their leadership in making our first order of business hearing directly from those heroes in their own words.

We wanted to hear and make sure that all of our colleagues and this country heard firsthand what we experienced on the ground that day. We asked them to explain the violence they had to endure to protect our democratic process, and in return, they made one simple request: to get to the bottom of this.

They want answers, and, quite frankly, they deserve answers. So far, both the Metro PD and the Capitol Police

have been excellent allies in this investigation. They have cooperated, shared their stories and expertise, and provided us with key evidence and accounts of the violence they endured that day. And we owe it to them to see this investigation through.

The vote we take today is a crucial step toward removing a roadblock in our investigation. We owe it to every officer who put their life on the line that day and every day to protect us here in the Capitol. We owe them answers. And this committee intends to get to those answers by all means necessary.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Calvert can attest, Jerry Lewis was a larger-than-life figure.

Over the course of his four decades of public service, Jerry was able to rise through the ranks here at the House to become the chair of the House Appropriations Committee. I notice a lot of appropriators here with us today, sharing their memories and paying their respects, as well.

Mr. Lewis earned the respect of Members from both sides of the aisle and worked tirelessly to promote our national defense, care for our veterans, and ensure folks back home in my community and his community of San Bernardino County received our fair share of resources.

Jerry was quick to remind people that he was a kid from San Bernardino. Maybe that is why he liked me a little more than he should have, because I was a kid from San Bernardino as well. But that kid went on to serve his community by advocating for it in Sacramento and eventually here in these halls.

Too often, our region in California is an afterthought. Smaller than our neighbors to the west in Los Angeles and Orange County, the Inland Empire, my home, was always Jerry's home, and we have always had to fight for our fair share of resources.

But Jerry dedicated his career to delivering resources for our community, and his impact can still be felt on the ground today and through the years ahead.

He served as my family's representative in Congress for many years. Later, I had the opportunity to represent him, first as his mayor and then as his representative in Congress.

He often called me ``my mayor.'' He would say: ``How is my mayor doing today?'' when he would see me around town, usually when he would see me at his favorite spot downtown where he was grabbing lunch with his bride.

I have never shared this story with Mr. Calvert. Jerry and Arlene were the first individuals to call me after I was appointed to a city council vacancy a bunch of years ago. The council appointment happened in the evening, and they called early in the morning Pacific time. They didn't quite wake me up, but it was a morning hour on the West Coast. They congratulated me on the appointment, and Jerry talked about the importance of local government making an impact in our daily lives. He reminded me that serving was a huge honor but also an immense obligation and responsibility.

While our politics, at times, were different, and he was quick to remind me of that, I will always be grateful for the advice, for the friendship, for the time he and Arlene spent with me over the years, meeting in his Rayburn office, back in town, or at community events. He was always measured; he was always professional; and he always put his community first.

It is a testament to his legacy that his colleagues from both sides of the aisle are here today to remember him.

My thoughts continue to be with Arlene and the family. I appreciate his contributions and his friendship.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for this Special Order.

Madam Speaker, today I want to honor Al Arguello, who is retiring after a 53-year career with Bank of America and will leave as President of Bank of America, Inland Empire.

A Rancho Cucamonga resident, Al has worked tirelessly throughout his career to give back to our community. When the great recession devastated the Inland Empire, it was Al's leadership that helped form the Housing Opportunities Collaborative to support the thousands of families facing foreclosure in our region. Al has also been a strong supporter of the Inland Empire's local economy, working to encourage the development of micro-businesses and finding ways to help entrepreneurs gain access to the start-up funds they need to succeed.

While he will continue to be involved as a key leader in our community, his friends and colleagues will surely miss him as he begins this new chapter. The lasting effects of Al Arguello' s leadership and philanthropic efforts can be felt throughout the Inland Empire, and I know our community is better off because of Al's decades of service.