Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, for the final time, I rise to address this Chamber, and I am leaving here with a heart full of gratitude.

When I reflect on the path I have traveled, I still can't believe it is real--a baby girl born in post-war Vietnam to parents facing persecution by the Communist government. We fled our homeland by boat and were rescued by American sailors. Our family was given refuge, granted citizenship, and provided opportunity in the United States.

My mom and dad worked so hard to make ends meet. They struggled to overcome barriers of language and culture, all so that I could have a better life than they did.

My happiest childhood memories are of fishing with my father. On the water, he told me stories of his old life in Vietnam. His new life in America wasn't easy, but I know he felt blessed to be an American.

Those who have endured the absence of freedom and safety rarely take their presence for granted.

As I grew up, I was encouraged and mentored by so many generous people who expected nothing in return. I remember hoping that, one day, I might be in a position to help people just as they helped me.

Over time, I realized that government service was a good way for me to chisel away at the infinite debt of gratitude I owe this country. I also discovered that it infused my professional life with a sense of purpose.

After the 9/11 attacks, I spent a few years at the Department of Defense, and it was a privilege to work alongside American patriots. I admired their singular focus on the mission: keeping our country safe from those who sought her harm. From them, I learned about courage and commitment.

A decade later, I heard the siren song of public service once again. I had moved to central Florida. I was the mother of two young children and worked at jobs in the private sector I enjoyed, but I was worried about polarization in our political system.

Although deep divisions in American politics have existed since the dawn of our Republic, there was something in the atmosphere that felt especially poisonous. Too many Democratic and Republican leaders failed to treat one another with civility and decency. They were unwilling to express policy differences without making personal attacks or using irresponsible rhetoric.

Extreme partisanship led to legislative gridlock, and communities across the country paid the price, including my own.

When a gunman shot 49 innocent people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, it seemed like yet another preventable tragedy that might have been avoided if common sense and political courage were on greater display in our Nation's Capitol.

If you want to change Washington, you have to change the type of people you are sending there, I said to myself, and I thought I could do my part to make things just a little bit better. So, I launched a long-shot campaign for the people's House, inspired by Teddy Roosevelt's view that the credit belongs to the man, or the woman, in the arena.

I was so excited when I became the first Vietnamese-American woman ever elected to Congress, and I thought about all the people who had lifted me up over the years. I confess I also thought about the people who underestimated me.

I wish my dad were alive to see what his daughter had done so that he would know his sacrifices were worth it. I vowed to work every day to prove I was worthy of the faith my constituents had placed in me.

As my congressional career draws to a close, I am proud of my service. I hope I earned the respect of those I represented, whether they were Democrats, Republicans, or neither, or whether they voted for me or would never dream of voting for me.

This job isn't easy, but nothing truly worth doing is. There are few places where you can make such a difference in people's lives as you can in the United States Congress.

Ask the veteran who finally received the benefit they earned thanks to the congressional office who broke through the bureaucratic red tape.

Ask the millions of Americans who got health and economic aid during the worst of the pandemic.

Ask the billions of people who will live on a cooler, cleaner planet because of the green investments we have made.

Ask the lion-hearted people of Ukraine who defend their land with weapons we gave them because their fight is our fight.

And ask the police officers who risked their lives on January 6 and who, hopefully, find comfort in the fact that there is a bipartisan committee that seeks to honor their valor by telling the truth about that terrible day.

I will miss this place, but, above all, I will miss the people. I have had wonderful colleagues, some of whom have become lifelong friends. My staff has been like a second family to me, loyal and devoted. We have had so much fun together and achieved so much for our constituents and our country. To honor them I will be entering their names in the Congressional Record. Thank you, Team Murphy.

To my real family--Sean, Liem, Maya, and Kona: I love you. None of this would have been possible or meaningful without you. You are going to be seeing much more of me, as you requested, and as you may come to regret.

I want to end with a word to young Americans, including young girls who look like me. I hope you consider government service. It requires many sacrifices, but the work is important and noble. Our Nation needs good people with steady hands to steer the ship of state: people with integrity; people with common sense who seek common ground; and patriots willing to put the public interest above their personal interests.

Representing my community and my country in Congress has been the greatest honor of my life.

I include in the Record the names of my staffers.

Michael Abare, Lauren Allen, Lauren Calmet, Eduardo

Carrizosa, Jennifer Carton, Rosnelly Chavarria, David Cox,

Gabriel Cruz, Alli Everton, Erica Fuller, Carolyn Haggis, Ken

Heidegger, Javier Hernandez, Brad Howard, Justin Karlins,

Rachel Kline, MacKensie Kvalvik, John Laufer, James Loomis,

Lale Mamaux Morrison, Katherine Marrs, Natalie Martinez,

Tamel McKinney, Phoebe Miner, Bruce Moody, Dao Nguyen, David

Ogle, Stephanie Palacios, Zoe Prince, Juliana Puente, Jeff

Rapp, Nicole Reyes, Adam Safran, Thomas Steenekamp, Christie

Stephenson, Kyle Thorp, Emma Trittin, Mark Tucker, Jonathan

Uriarte, Christy Wagner, and Madelyn Wiseman.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to underscore the crucial importance of the religious liberty provisions in the Respect for Marriage Act and to ensure the legislative intent behind these provisions is crystal clear.

As you know, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges from 2015 established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. When Obergefell was argued, then-Solicitor General Verrilli was asked whether recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage would lead to churches, religious organizations and other not- for-profits potentially having their tax-exempt status reconsidered, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Bob Jones University v. U.S. Solicitor General Verrilli responded that ``it's certainly going to be an issue.'' In recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in 2015, the United States Supreme Court did not reconsider the Bob Jones University precedent, leaving this ``issue'' unresolved.

The Senate Amendment to the Respect for Marriage Act that we are voting on today, answers this question, and a number of others, providing strong protections for religious liberty, especially when combined with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

It is my understanding that section 2 of the Respect for Marriage Act, in light of the Supreme Court's Bob Jones v. United States decision in 1983, would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from successfully arguing that the United States now has a ``national policy'' favoring same-sex marriage, and use this national policy to deny tax-exempt status to religious organizations.

Section 2 of the bill states that a variety of reasonable views on the role of gender in marriage exist today, based on both decent and honorable religious and philosophical beliefs. The bill states that all views are due proper respect by the Federal Government.

Furthermore, Section 2 of this bill states that the Federal Government recognizes religious liberty as an integral component of our national policy regarding marriage. Section 2 of this bill was explicitly included to ensure that the provisions of the Bob Jones case relating to the tax-exempt status of organizations are not applicable to this bill.

Bob Jones University v. U.S., decided in 1983 before Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, upheld the IRS' decision to rescind Bob Jones University's tax exemption on the basis of a ``firm and unyielding'' national policy against racial discrimination. Section 2 affirms that diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. This finding preempts an analogy between the Court's analysis in the Bob Jones University case about race and beliefs about marriage, and is a statement of policy respecting diverse views about the role of gender in marriage.

I'd like to discuss another provision which is central to this bill-- section 4, which grants ``full faith and credit'' under Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution to marriages performed in each of our States, strengthening federalism and making our constitutional structure work.

Section 4 of the bill states that no person ``acting under color of State law'' may deny full faith and credit to any ``public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.'' The phrase ``acting under color of State law'' is also used in our civil rights statutes to refer to the actions of State and local government officers and employees with respect to rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and Federal law.

It is my understanding that use of this phrase in section 4 of the bill is intended to incorporate the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of this term, including but not limited to the Rendel/ Baker v. Kohn and NCAA v. Tarkanian cases.

I'd like to now turn to section 6 of the bill, which provides that no church or religious non-profit will be forced to solemnize or conduct a marriage ceremony under this bill.

It is my understanding that section 6(b) bars any civil claim or cause of action relating to a nonprofit religious organization's refusal under that section to solemnize or celebrate a marriage and that such a refusal cannot create a civil claim or cause of action.

The text of section 7 also makes no reference to ``compelling governmental interests.'' Section 7 provides that nothing in this bill should be construed to deny or alter the benefit, status or right of an otherwise eligible individual or legal entity in relation to tax-exempt status, tax treatment, contracts, loans, scholarships, licenses and other agreements not arising from a marriage.

It is my understanding that, in conjunction with section 2, which eliminates a successful analogy to the Bob Jones case, section 7 would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from using the Respect for Marriage Act to alter or remove the tax-exempt status of an entity for expressing beliefs in opposition or support of same-sex marriage. This bill is intended to enshrine a national policy of respect for all views surrounding marriage, and to enact some of the strongest religious liberty protections since the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. This legislation also ensures that religious liberty will have more of a central role in future debates in our courts and in the halls of Congress.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on Roll Call Nos. 438 through 440 on September 19, 2022. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call Nos. 438 through 440.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on Roll Call No. 253 on June 8, 2022.

Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 253.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on Roll Call Nos. 164 through 167 on May 11, 2022. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call Nos. 164 through 167.

Madam Speaker, the memorial service for former Vice President Walter Mondale was held last week.

Unbeknownst to him, Mondale had a major impact on my life and on the lives of other refugees fleeing violence and oppression in Southeast Asia. The moral courage he displayed then should influence and inspire world leaders now as we confront a new refugee crisis spawned by Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The Carter-Mondale administration took office in 1977 in the aftermath of the end of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war. Because my parents had worked with American and South Vietnamese forces during the war, they faced persecution by the communist government that had taken over.

In 1979, we were finally able to escape by boat. Unfortunately for us, we ran out of fuel in international waters. But, fortunately, a U.S. Navy ship responded to our distress call, and the sailors gave us the fuel and supplies we needed to reach a Malaysian refugee camp. We were the beneficiaries of American power and generosity.

My family's physical journey from Vietnam to America and our emotional journey from darkness to light was only possible because of policy decisions made by this Nation's leaders.

After Saigon fell to communist forces in 1975, President Ford permitted about 130,000 South Vietnamese citizens into the United States. But after that, America's gates were essentially closed to refugees from Southeast Asia, even though the situation on the ground continued to deteriorate.

Former U.S. allies were being sent to what was called reeducation camps. They were essentially hard labor camps, and many of them didn't survive.

When Carter and Mondale entered the White House, many Vietnamese families, including mine, were taking their chances on the high seas. We were collectively known as the Vietnamese boat people. There was debate within the U.S. Government about what to do. Some policymakers thought America had done enough. Others believed this country could do more. Carter and Mondale ultimately sided with the advocates for additional action, even though the weight of public opinion was against them.

Mondale chaired a meeting during which he grew impatient with officials from the Defense and State departments. ``Are you telling me that we have thousands of people drowning in the open sea, and we have the 7th Fleet right there, and we can't help them?'' he asked.

Although some Navy officials were reluctant to use American ships to rescue refugees, Mondale overruled them, and the Navy soon came to cherish their humanitarian role. As one ship commander involved in a rescue operation told Mondale: ``I thought it would demoralize my sailors, but I was dead wrong. It's going to make a difference to the way those people think about America. Because when their life was at risk, they saw this ship with an American flag come up and these young guys go down and pick them up . . . It's hard to stay mad at a policy like that.''

Of course, saving refugees was only half the battle. Refugees also needed to find countries willing to accept them. Again, Mondale led the country and the world.

In July 1979, Carter sent Mondale to Geneva to address a U.N. conference where Mondale delivered an eloquent and effective speech. He invoked the inadequate efforts taken by the international community to assist European Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. In that case, the consequences of inaction were the death camps.

``Let us not re-enact their error,'' he told the delegates. ``Let us not be the heirs to their shame. . . .

``We face a world problem. Let us fashion a world solution.

``History will not forgive us if we fail. History will not forget us if we succeed.''

Mondale's speech prompted a standing ovation. More importantly, it prompted many nations to increase the number of refugees they accepted.

The record is clear. The only reason my family and families like ours were given sanctuary and opportunity in America was because of leaders like Mondale, who chose to do what was morally right over what was politically popular.

While history does not repeat itself, it does rhyme. Today, a new refugee crisis has emerged. Millions of families have fled Ukraine in the face of Russian savagery. To date, the response from the international community has mostly been in the mold of Mondale. World leaders have spent political and financial capital to help their fellow human beings.

We must continue to meet the moral moment. We must follow the Mondale model.

Thank God for Walter Mondale. Rest in peace, Mr. Vice President.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, as a member of the committee charged with investigating the attack on our Capitol, our Constitution, and our country, I support this resolution to refer Peter Navarro and Daniel Scavino to the Department of Justice for contempt of Congress.

I will focus my remarks on Mr. Navarro.

There is clear evidence that Mr. Navarro was involved in efforts to keep President Trump in power after he lost the election.

We subpoenaed Mr. Navarro seeking testimony and documents regarding the actions he took to discredit the election and prevent the results from being certified. Mr. Navarro made a blanket claim of executive privilege. This claim lacks merit as a matter of law and common sense.

No President, either sitting or former, has claimed privilege regarding Mr. Navarro's testimony or documents. And Mr. Navarro has no authority to assert privilege himself.

Beyond that fundamental flaw, since the election, Mr. Navarro has written and spoken widely about the subjects that are the focus of our subpoena. He is eager to tell his story, if he can do so on his terms in a way that serves his interests.

He published a book where he details the actions he took to change the outcome of the election. He writes that he worked with Steve Bannon on a scheme called the ``Green Bay Sweep.'' Its purpose was to encourage Vice President Pence to delay certification of the votes and send the election back to State legislatures.

Mr. Navarro writes that he called Attorney General Barr, urging the Department of Justice to support President Trump's efforts to challenge the election in court, which Barr declined to do.

Mr. Navarro notes that he kept a journal detailing this episode and other actions he took.

And finally, while he was refusing to comply with our subpoena, Mr. Navarro made numerous media appearances discussing his role in the events culminating on January 6.

Mr. Navarro has significant relevant knowledge. He is happy to share it on television and in podcasts, but he won't provide this information in response to a lawful subpoena.

Mr. Navarro is in contempt of Congress and should be referred for prosecution.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on Roll Call Nos. 58 and 59 on March 7, 2022. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call Nos. 58 and 59.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on rollcall Nos. 44 and 45 on February 9, 2022. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall Nos. 44 and 45.

Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

Aguilar (Correa)

Amodei (Balderson)

Baird (Bucshon)

Bass (Takano)

Bera (Correa)

Bergman (Stauber)

Bowman (Jeffries)

Boyle, Brendan F. (Beyer)

Brooks (Moore (AL))

Brownley (Meng)

Calvert (Garcia (CA))

Clarke (NY) (Kelly (IL))

Cohen (Beyer)

Crist (Wasserman Schultz)

Cuellar (Correa)

DeSaulnier (Raskin)

Doggett (Raskin)

Dunn (Joyce (PA))

Fallon (Ellzey)

Frankel, Lois (Meng)

Fulcher (Simpson)

Garamendi (Correa)

Gimenez (Cammack)

Gohmert (Weber (TX))

Gonzalez, Vicente (Correa)

Gosar (Gaetz)

Grijalva (Garcia (IL))

Hagedorn (Carl)

Huffman (Gomez)

Issa (Garcia (CA))

Johnson (SD) (Bice (OK))

Kahele (Case)

Keating (Cicilline)

Kelly (PA) (Balderson)

Khanna (Gomez)

Kirkpatrick (Pallone)

Kuster (Bonamici)

Larson (CT) (Cicilline)

Lawson (FL) (Evans)

Lofgren (Jeffries)

Loudermilk (Fleischmann)

Lowenthal (Beyer)

Lucas (Mullin)

Malinowski (Pallone)

McEachin (Wexton)

Moore (WI) (Raskin)

Napolitano (Correa)

Omar (Garcia (IL))

Payne (Pallone)

Pingree (Bonamici)

Porter (Wexton)

Reed (McHenry)

Roybal-Allard (Correa)

Ruiz (Correa)

Ruppersberger (Beyer)

Rush (Kaptur)

Salazar (Kim (CA))

Schneider (Kelly (IL))

Sewell (Cicilline)

Sires (Pallone)

Soto (Wasserman Schultz)

Strickland (Takano)

Suozzi (Raskin)

Trone (Beyer)

Vargas (Correa)

Waters (Jeffries)

Watson Coleman (Pallone)

Wilson (FL) (Cicilline)

Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on Roll Call Numbers 436 through 440 on December 9, 2021. Had I been present, I would have voted: YEA on Roll Call No. 436; NAY on Roll Call No. 437; NAY on Roll Call No. 438; NAY on Roll Call No. 439; and YEA on Roll Call No. 440.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on Roll Call Nos. 406 through 435 on December 8, 2021. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call Nos. 406 through 435.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan resolution.

This resolution honors the Cuban people who have protested peacefully at great personal risk for their fundamental freedoms and a brighter future for their families. These are men and women of courage and character, confronting a ruthless and repressive regime.

Our resolution sends these patriots a simple message: America has your back.

I feel a deep sense of solidarity with the Cuban people. When I was a baby, my family fled a Communist country, and like many Cuban families, we found refuge and opportunity in America. And like so many Cuban Americans, I never take for granted the rights I am afforded in this country because I know what the alternative looks like.

Following the historic protests in Cuba, I offered a bipartisan amendment to an appropriations bill that would have increased funding to support democracy, human rights, political prisoners, and internet access in Cuba. To my grave disappointment, this amendment was prevented from coming to the floor of the House by members of my own party.

America must speak and act with moral clarity. We should support men and women standing up to authoritarian regimes across the globe, and especially in our shared neighborhood. I urge support for this bill.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on Roll Call 319 on October 20, 2021. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 319.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution to refer Stephen Bannon to the Department of Justice for prosecution for contempt of Congress.

It didn't have to be this way. Mr. Bannon, a self-professed patriot, could have done the patriotic thing and cooperated with our bipartisan committee.

If Mr. Bannon was proud of the role he played in connection with January 6, he should be eager to tell his side of the story. Instead, he is acting like a man who has something to hide. Our committee seeks only the truth. That is our legal charge and our moral obligation. We cannot let any individual impede our inquiry, and we will not tolerate Mr. Bannon's evasion.

Why must we be so unrelenting in our pursuit of truth? Because on January 6, the greatest Nation on Earth came under attack. And this attack wasn't carried out by officials in Beijing, Moscow, or Tehran, or by foreign terrorists even. It was an attack conducted by our fellow citizens, regular Americans who were radicalized because they believed outrageous lies fed to them by other Americans in positions of power and influence.

The attack was launched against the seat and symbol of our Republic. It was designed to disrupt the certification of the Presidential election results, to defy the will of the voters. This was no peaceful protest in a proud American tradition. It was violent and vicious. Members of the mob wielded weapons. They called for the death of the Vice President. They hunted Members of Congress. They caused severe harm to law enforcement officers. And the real disservice to the police comes from those who want to whitewash the violence of January 6 and pretend that the riot of that day was anything short of the violent attack it was, aimed at derailing the peaceful transfer of power.

America is not just a place; it is an idea. And on January 6, there was an attack on the very idea of America. I believe that patriots of all political stripes should want to protect our Capitol, this country, and her Constitution. Our committee will make a full accounting of what happened, and we will make recommendations to ensure it never happens again.

Madam Speaker, as part of our national celebration of Hispanic Heritage Month, I am paying tribute to Floridians who have made outstanding contributions to our community and our country.

Today I rise to honor the Chief of Police for the City of Orlando, Orlando Rolon.

Orlando, who was born in Puerto Rico, moved to Central Florida with his family in 1977.

In 1982, Orlando enlisted in the United States Marine Corps Reserve and served for four years. Following his military service, Orlando continued to build a life in Central Florida and worked in construction.

Orlando joined the Orlando Police Department in 1992. His commitment to fostering effective communication with the Spanish-speaking residents of Orlando led him to become the first Hispanic spokesperson in the history of OPD. Orlando has used his extensive experience and leadership abilities to bring people together, from traveling to Puerto Rico to assist with hurricane recovery efforts to providing crucial briefings in Spanish to the friends and families of victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting.

In 2018, Mayor Buddy Dyer appointed Orlando to become the Orlando Police Department's 39th Chief of Police. Chief Rolon is the first person of Hispanic heritage ever to hold this position.

As Chief and throughout his nearly 30 years of service to the Department, Orlando has dedicated himself to improving trust and effective communication between law enforcement and our community. He has a servant's heart and the City of Orlando is safer and stronger because of him.

I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring and celebrating Chief Orlando Rolon.