Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on Monday July 22, 2013, I missed the following votes:

H.R. 1542--WMD Intelligence and Information Sharing Act of 2013.

Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yes'' on rollcall No. 375.

H. Con. Res. 44--Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District of Columbia Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run.

Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yes'' on rollcall No. 376.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the uniform and civilian employees at the Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, or SPAWAR, and their successful launch of the second Mobile User Objective System satellite MUOS-2.

With the MUOS-2 launch just hours ago, our services will have a next- generation narrowband tactical satellite communications system designed to significantly improve ground communications for U.S. forces. This achievement comes at a time when most DOD civilians, including those who worked on this project, are being forced to take a pay cut because Congress cannot fix sequestration.

It would be natural for our Federal workers to listen to the debate in Washington about the budget and feel that their work is not valued. Mr. Speaker, I value our Federal workers. And MUOS-2 is only the latest example of the important role they play even in these troubling times.

Mr. Chairman, we all agree that No Child Left Behind is outdated. A diverse coalition of education, of business, and of civil rights leaders also agree that H.R. 5 is not the right answer.

H.R. 5 fails on all measures to promote educational equity, provide a well-rounded education, and help struggling schools succeed.

It fails our hardworking teachers by creating evaluation systems without providing professional development.

It fails to make the right investments by block granting critical programs and locking in across-the-board cuts.

What kind of a message does this bill send to our future leaders, to our scientists, our teachers and innovators?

Investing in education, well, it's not just good for our economy and our competitiveness. It is key to our national security, as generals and admirals have expressed to me through my work as ranking member of the Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee.

So now, more than ever, we can't afford to let our kids down. I urge my colleagues to say ``no'' to H.R. 5.

Madam Speaker, this week, over 650,000 civilian employees of the Department of Defense are required to begin taking involuntary furlough days. Over 25,000 of these employees reside in San Diego. This represents about a 20 percent pay cut for the next 3 months for these public servants. This pay cut is in addition to the fact that Federal employees have not received their standard salary adjustments for the past 3 years.

These salary cuts have a very damaging effect on the employees and on their families, an effect which should be clear to all of us; but they also have disastrous secondary effects. I am worried particularly about the impact these cuts will have on the recruitment and retention of the civilian workforce. As one of my San Diegan constituents in the Federal workforce said:

Furloughs send a very demoralizing and humiliating message

to all Federal employees, one that suggests that we are not

valued and that the work we do is not valued.

We must do better. We can start by appointing budget conferees immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the United States Tennis Association, San Diego District Tennis Association, Naval Medical Center San Diego, and Balboa Tennis Club for working together on the second annual National Tennis Camp for Wounded, Ill, and Injured Service Members and Veterans.

This remarkable event took place on June 12, 2013 through June 15, 2013 and brought military heroes together to play tennis while working to improve their well-being and overall quality of life.

I would like to also acknowledge the U.S. Olympic Committee, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and private donors for providing all funding for the costs for each participant.

Since 2009, the Balboa Tennis Club, in collaboration with Naval Medical Center San Diego and the San Diego District Tennis Association, has provided hundreds of free tennis clinics to more than 400 ill and injured service members and veterans from all the military services as part of Naval Medical Center San Diego's Balboa Warrior Athlete Program.

The Balboa Warrior Athlete Program's tennis program and tennis camp have been recognized nationally and are the model for similar tennis programs for ill and injured service members and veterans that have been established at other major military medical centers, Warrior Transition Units, and VA hospitals across the country.

The United States Tennis Association and its member organizations have a long and proud history of supporting veterans and wounded warriors. The USTA Military Outreach mission is to provide sustainable world-wide tennis support, training and programming options to America's service members, families and veterans. The USTA utilizes its existing initiatives and programs to reach, support and provide direct services to military families, service members and veterans. The USTA has introduced more than 300,000 deployed service members to the recreational, therapeutic and social benefits of tennis.

These efforts have made a positive impact in the lives of ill and injured service members and veterans. Tennis allows them to work on eye-hand coordination, balance, endurance, and the ability to transfer weight. It also decreases stress and anxiety and helps with re- integration into the community.

All the above-mentioned parties who came together to put on a successful National Tennis Camp for Wounded, Ill, and Injured Service Members and Veterans deserve our thanks and gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it increases hunger of our constituents throughout this great country of ours.

Mr. Speaker, our amazing, time-traveling Supreme Court has truly surprised me this week. It was able to take us back to the 1960s on Tuesday and to step into the 21st century the next day by striking down DOMA.

Yesterday's ruling was a long-overdue affirmation that married same- sex couples deserve the same Federal benefits as everyone else. It's a major step towards marriage equality. But this victory comes on the heels of a dangerous blow to voting rights. On Tuesday, the Court struck down a provision that has been vital to guaranteeing the right to vote for all Americans. The Voting Rights Act is a crucial guard against States backsliding on the progress of the civil rights movement, and we must now work to restore its protections.

The struggle for voting rights and marriage equality are not so different. Both have been long fights with victories hard won. And in each we have seen freedoms and progress once thought impossible become inevitable. Yet even as we celebrate a victory for marriage equality, the Voting Rights Act ruling shows us that we cannot take these gains for granted, that maintaining these liberties requires constant vigilance and continued advocacy.

These fights are far from over; but in time, I know we will succeed. In the words of Dr. King: The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

Madam Speaker, I certainly want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle because I think we've seen how people can come together on a serious issue like this that really does affect our national security.

What's so important about this bill is I think it sends a message. It sends a message to perpetrators. But more than that, it sends a message to bystanders that responding to bad behavior is an important and critical thing to do. We can celebrate the good behavior, and I think this is also a way of sending that message. But we're saying that bad behavior will not be tolerated. We see this not just in our Armed Forces, but we see it around the country, as well.

Just recently, General Morrison of Australia had a very, I think, concise and strong message to his troops in saying that the standard that you walk past is the standard that you uphold. Let's uphold the highest standard. Retaliation drives people from not reporting sexual abuse and sexual crimes. We need it to be okay to report because if people are fearing for their career or fearing that somehow they're going to be so demoralized by reporting, that's not going to work.

This is a good bill, and I applaud all my colleagues for supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here with my colleagues today. I certainly want to thank Mr. O'Rourke and Mr. Vela and Mr. Gallego for presenting what we all believe is so critical and so important.

It's not just about border communities and border cities that acknowledge and benefit from our relationship with the border, and particularly with the Mexican border; it really is the entire States that we're representing and

far beyond that. Because my colleague represented how much trade is done in other States throughout our country--we know it's important to national security--we also know it's important to our economic interest, because that trade fuels our economy, it stimulates our competitiveness, and it also reflects our cultural values. Those things are critically important, and we need to bring those into the discussion as well.

You know, we often talk here in Congress about the need to give businesses the certainty that they need, but honestly, look at what's been happening today. The budget standoffs and sequestration are doing just the opposite of what our businesses really need. In fact, Congress' inability to pass legislation is jeopardizing our greatest opportunity right now, which is economic growth, and that is our commerce along our borders.

Six million U.S. jobs depend on trade with Mexico. Shall I say that again? Six million U.S. jobs depend on trade with Mexico. Last year, imports from Mexico accounted for more than half of our two nations' total trade, which is about $278 billion. Sometimes we can differ slightly on those numbers, but that's about what it is. That trade relies on modern infrastructure, it relies on roads, and it relies on ports of entry that can accommodate the enormous volume of goods coming through every single day.

But what's the reality today? Well, the reality is that our ports of entry are in various states of disarray because of underfunding for improvement and modernization projects. Our ports do not have the capacity to meet this demand, meaning that often people have to wait up to at least 2\1/2\ hours during the day of commerce and trucks up to 6.

You know, there's an app out there that tells users how long of a wait to expect. In San Diego, in the district, wait times on Sundays at the San Ysidro Port of Entry can reach 3 to 4 hours, and now and then it can even exceed that.

The other day, I was up early getting ready to board a plane to come into Washington from San Diego; and even at about 5:30 in the morning, at the ports of entry, the wait was about 1 hour and 45 minutes. And you know what? They were celebrating the fact that it was only that long.

You have to come down to the border to see this. I think for folks who don't live on a border like we have in San Ysidro in San Diego, you can't even imagine how many cars are assembling there. It's pretty spectacular. And you know what? It shouldn't be this way, and it doesn't have to be this way. No modern economy can operate under those conditions. No modern economy devotes just $50 million to fund infrastructure projects for ports of entry for our entire Nation. Think about that: $50 million for all of our ports of entry.

What we should be doing is viewing our ports of entry and our borders as assets to our Nation. But instead, chronic underfunding has led to wait times that cost our country every day in total productivity loss and tax revenue. It's tremendous. Wait times translate to $7.2 billion in output loss and cost us upwards of 62,000 jobs--62,000 jobs--people who could be working if we could make our ports of entry more efficient.

Well, we do have some good news. Congress has already authorized infrastructure improvements at the Nation's ports of entry, including critical phases at the San Ysidro Port of Entry in San Diego. We know that's the busiest land crossing in the world. So that's the good news that Congress has authorized that.

What's the bad news? The bad news is that Congress has refused to provide the funding necessary to break ground on those two additional phases. And you know what? That's just not consistent for what we talk about as needing a border security bill for this Nation. The fact that that is so underfunded and chaotic, by any means, suggests that we don't really think that we need to do the right thing when it comes to border security.

So let's place the need where it belongs. It belongs on infrastructure, and it belongs in trying to figure out what is it that's going to make a difference for this country. Well, certainly funding that border security will help on the border for ports of entry.

If there is one thing that this body should be able to do, that we should be able to come together on, it should be a smart investment that businesses want and workers need. I can assure you, that's what they want and businesses need.

So I urge my colleagues to get to work on a budget that supports our Nation's ports and our engines of economic growth and place the need for border security where it belongs. We know that it will help create the economic engines that we need for our future.

Thank you so much to my colleagues. I appreciate your bringing us together for this.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 285, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I join my many colleagues today who have spoken out against this outrageous bill.

I also want to object to the way that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have brought up H.R. 1797 for consideration.

When a bill that affects the lives and the health of women all across our country is coming up for this consideration, we deserve to have an open process. But, instead, the majority is taking a rather undemocratic approach, blocking all amendments to this harmful bill.

Beyond the fact that the bill is unconstitutional, it endangers the lives of women across our country. It places a ban on abortions with the narrowest of rape and incest exceptions, and it forces a woman who has been raped to report the attack to law enforcement before seeking an abortion.

So I have to ask these questions: Do the sponsors of this legislation understand the trauma that a rape survivor endures?

And do they understand what a cruel message that is to send to a woman in her time of greatest need?

Madam Speaker, those of us who are here in the Congress, I believe we all came here to solve the problems of the day. As we address our national priorities, is this issue high on their list?

Is this the issue that gives people confidence that Congress understands the challenges that people throughout America face today?

I know what those challenges are, I think. I've listened to my constituents. They worry about putting food on the table, a roof over their heads, and sending their kids to college.

So here we are, with a very narrow agenda, with an issue that is being used to strike at the heart of women's health issues.

I urge my colleagues, please reject this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, June 11, 2013, I missed the following votes:

H.R. 251--South Utah Valley Electric Conveyance Act, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 212.

H.R. 1157--Rattlesnake Mountain Public Access Act, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 213.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I really respect the gentleman and what he's bringing forward, but the reality is that mandatory minimums have been shown to actually reduce the incidence of reporting.

Judges and juries need the ability to decide with discretion and not strictly by its appearance. Sometimes--and we've seen this many times-- mandatory minimums can have the opposite effect: encouraging jurors to make a decision based on the potential sentence as opposed to the facts.

That's why I'm standing in opposition, because we also know that organizations who have worked very hard to look at this issue worry that this could go in the wrong direction. Protect our Defenders, which has been a very strong advocacy group for victims, worries that when a jury knows that a perpetrator will automatically be dishonorably discharged, that the jury will be less likely to assign confinement charges in addition. They need to see the full picture.

So we must take caution to judge every case individually.

As we have additional speakers, I reserve the balance of my time.

I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

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

This is a complex issue. We know that. I think what we feel is this further complicates it. I think my colleague has introduced with Congresswoman Tsongas a bill that does much of what we're talking about here, but there is an exception in terms of the way that the jury is able to move forward here. We think that this actually makes sense so that the decisions that are made are absolutely based on an individual case and what we can offer in terms of making certain that the perpetrator is held accountable.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank my colleagues on the committee for working together to bring forward a good bill. My thanks, of course, to Chairman Wilson and to the committee staff for working in a bipartisan manner.

The bill contains a multitude of provisions to address the issue of sexual assault; and while it may seem that this year Congress focused on sexual assault in the military, the reality is that this committee and its members have been working hard to address this issue, which demands our attention, for the last several years. This committee has, once again, put forward a number of proposals; but as much as we would wish that legislation alone will stop someone from committing a sexual act, we know that is not the case. It will also not stop the fear of retaliation, which prevents a number of servicemembers from reporting a sexual assault.

This problem and how we deal with it has to start and end with those who wear the uniform, but it is important that we provide them the tools they need to effectively change the system and, ultimately, the culture by holding perpetrators accountable and commanders and prosecutors to the highest standard. Whether through bystander intervention, command climates that do not tolerate or condone sexual harassment and innuendo, and appropriate prosecutions and command actions, our servicemembers are ultimately the change agents who need to step forward.

This bill also focuses on the dependents and families who have sacrificed so much as well and who have been the backbone of support for our servicemembers through over a decade of war. Military families also bear the scars of war, and many need help as well. I am pleased that the bill includes a number of provisions to support families, including a provision that seeks to track the number of dependents who have taken their own lives by suicide. While the number of suicides for Active Duty members has increased, we have heard anecdotal evidence that the same holds true for dependents, and the bill seeks to determine if the Services can begin to track these individuals as well so that we can determine the best course of action to also address this critical problem.

Included are several provisions to address issues within the Reserve components, including a requirement that members of the Reserve be provided at least 120 days' notification of their deployments. We have been in conflict for more than a decade, and it's time that the Services ensure that, when individuals and units are called to deploy or if their orders are canceled, they have adequate time to prepare.

I would like to mention, though, Mr. Chairman, that there is one provision which, I think, could adversely impact the morale, well- being, good order, and discipline of the force. It is a provision that extends protections to the actions and speech of servicemembers. In essence, this provision protects an individual who engages in hateful or discriminatory speech or action, and a commander may take action only when actual harm occurs.

So if this language becomes law, a servicemember could engage in such speech and action for as long as and as much as desired, and a commander could only act against the individual when, say, the first shot was taken. I don't believe that was the author's intent, but I do believe that the language as currently written could be made to be understood in that fashion.

While I have some concerns with the provisions in the bill, the overall bill provides many benefits to our troops and their families, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, student interest rates are set to double in a little over a month unless Congress stops it, and that's why I rise today in opposition to the Making College More Expensive Act. We should be considering legislation like the one my colleague, Mr. Courtney, introduced to extend low interest rates for 2 years; but, instead, we're debating a bill that makes students worse off than if Congress does nothing. That's because, under this bill, student interest rates would be subject to the whims of the market.

Today, interest rates are at an all-time low, but what about 5 years? what about 10 years? what about 15 years from now? This bill lures students in with a low variable rate, only to trap them with a higher rate upon repayment. Well, Mr. Speaker, we've seen this bait and switch before, only usually it was by credit card companies setting up shop outside of college sporting events, not by the Federal Government.

We are not subprime lenders. The Federal Government should not be profiting from students. It shouldn't be making $4 billion off of students.