Floor Statements

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the creation of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, and I encourage all of the House to do the same.

There is precedent for Select Committees like this one. During 1973, in the 93rd Congress, the House created the Select Committee on Committees. And although the Select Committee's mission was to study the structure and operation of House committees, it ultimately made several recommendations

to improve House-wide administrative and technology functions.

Among the improvements and modernization steps, the Select Committee suggested that the House form a Commission on Information and Facilities, tasked with responding to the growing number of issues Congress faced, but with limited access to information and analysis.

The Commission also tackled the problem of growing staff needed to support an increased workload, but with limited physical space to accommodate them. The result was an installation of a system of 30 computer terminals for Members of Congress and committees of legislative research.

Now, this seems trivial now, especially when information is in our pockets, in our iPhones, but at the time it was revolutionary for the Congress to be able to get this information on its computers. This is just one example of how a Select Committee made Congress work better.

Following the Select Committee came the election of the Class of 1974. Fueled by the Watergate scandal, the new Members did much to change the Congress. They decentralized power. They invigorated our oversight responsibilities. They began a conversation that would change how we do business forever.

For example, televising the floor proceedings; the 1976 Government in the Sunshine Act. The process they started opened up our democracy to the American people and created a lasting record for history.

This Select Committee has a broad mandate to study how our Congress has changed and is changing. That begins with our changing workforce. We need to invest in our workforce, and that is why the proposal we passed in the rules package yesterday to create the Office of Diversity and Inclusion was so important. This Select Committee will be tasked with studying how we can better recruit, retain, and compensate our staff.

We also must be responsible stewards of public money, and this Select Committee will help us minimize waste and maximize value in how we operate the House.

Now, as has been mentioned, one of the virtues of the Select Committee is its composition. It will be composed of members of the House Administration Committee who have firsthand experience with the details of House administration. There will be members of the Rules Committee, experts in process and procedures who know what works and what doesn't when it comes to an efficient legislative process, and the Select Committee will feature Members in their first term who bring a new perspective and great energy to the House.

Shortly after her election, my home State colleague from California, Representative Katie Porter said: ``Congress wasn't built for Members like me.'' And unfortunately, I think Katie is right. But we can change that, and we will change that. We can give the people's House back to the people.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, I do have an additional speaker. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.

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

Congress is a creature of precedent, but we must never be captive to the old ways. The House, the people's body, must continually update and renew itself to meet the challenges facing the Nation and to respond to the needs of a new generation of representatives. This Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress is a way this Congress can identify and address the challenges of tomorrow, and will assist us in boldly meeting these challenges.

The Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress is a way to deal with problems facing this body right now, today. The Select Committee is a way to make sure that my colleague, Katie Porter, works in a Congress built for her and all our new Members.

It is long past time to chart a path forward and to address the problems we must face. I look forward to working with all the members of the Select Committee and congressional stakeholders in transforming the House for the better on a bipartisan basis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Pastor Kenny Foreman, who passed away on December 16, 2018. I spoke three years ago on the impact he made on Santa Clara County and it saddens me that he has left us so soon. He was a beloved member of our community whose passing is deeply felt.

Pastor Kenny Foreman dedicated his life to the ministry. He started to travel the country at age seventeen as an evangelist minister. With his wife, Shirley, he continued his commitment to his beliefs and established the Cathedral of Faith in 1965. Since then Pastor Foreman was a pillar in our community's spiritual life. He has touched thousands of lives with a congregation of more than 12,000 members with over 70 ministries.

As his life's work, the Cathedral of Light, serves the spiritual needs ofthe community and gives help to those in need. One of the ministries, ``Reaching Out,'' is a food assistance program that operates one of the largest and most efficient food programs in the state of California. Their mission is to serve the low-

income, disadvantaged, and homeless in Santa Clara County. Other ministries serve those recently released from incarceration, give support to those with addiction, and aid parents with children who have special needs. These programs are just a few that support our community and are emblematic of Pastor Foreman's life-long service to others.

I first met and worked with Kenny Foreman nearly forty years ago. I know personally of his love for God and his dedication to our community and especially to those in need. He was a remarkable man and someone I was privileged to consider a friend.

Pastor Kenny Foreman is survived by sons, Ken and Kurt; their mother, Shirley; four grandchildren; two great-grandchildren; and countless friends. Mr. Speaker, our Santa Clara County community mourns his passing, but we are grateful for his life, his generosity, and his contributions. He has left our world a better place and will be dearly missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with my colleagues, U.S. House Representatives Anna Eshoo, Ro Khanna, and Jimmy Panetta, to honor the annual Veterans Day Parade in our community and to take a moment to acknowledge the selfless sacrifices of our veterans, who have fearlessly served our nation at home and abroad.

This year marks the 100th Anniversary of Armistice. Armistice Day, celebrated each year on November 11, commemorates the armistice signed between the Allies of World War I and Germany, which took effect on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month to end hostilities on the western Front of World War I. Each year, to observe this important Anniversary in our community, the

United Veterans Council of Santa Clara County helps conduct the Annual San Jose Veterans Day Parade.

One of the largest parades in California, the San Jose Veterans Day Parade' serves to recognize and celebrate, with gratitude and appreciation, all those who have served and continue to serve with the U.S. Armed Forces. This year's theme of the Parade is, ``A Century of Honoring Those Who Serve.'' Indeed, this occasion provides us with an opportunity to recognize our veterans, who serve to protect our freedom and foster the safety and prosperity that we enjoy as a nation. We gather to acknowledge also the families of all those who serve our nation and express our gratitude to them for their ongoing, steadfast support of our servicemembers.

Mr. Speaker, we hereby recognize and commend those members of our U.S. Armed Forces, who have dedicated their lives in service of our country, as well as their families and communities, who have supported their service to our country. During our annual San Jose Veterans Day Parade, our community unites in celebration of all those who dedicate their lives to preserve and protect our way of life and our future.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present and voting for the following roll call votes due to a family wedding celebration. Had I been present, I would have voted: No. 399: YEA; No. 398: YEA; No. 397: NAY; No. 396: YEA; No. 395: YEA; and No. 394: YEA.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is simply a divisive political stunt meant to stir up conservative voters ahead of the midterm elections and seeks to stoke the worst kinds of sentiments in the body politic.

The resolution states that it is ``of paramount importance that the United States maintains the legitimacy of its elections and protects them from interference, including interference from foreign threats.'' Yet the resolution does not even mention the greatest ``foreign threat'' we face--Russian interference intended to disrupt our elections and sow chaos in our political system. The GOP hypocrisy is breathtaking. The Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and others have worked all year to undermine and discredit the Mueller investigation into the Russian interference with our 2016 election. Furthermore, House Republicans have voted to block needed funding to help states better secure their election systems from the ongoing Russian efforts to interfere in the 2018 election--ongoing efforts that have been confirmed by senior Administration officials. In short, this resolution ignores the real threats our elections are facing, and instead plays political games.

The resolution also states that ``voting is fundamental to a functioning democracy,'' yet it fails to address any of the real threats to voting rights faced by U.S. citizens. After the conservative members of the Supreme Court effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act's pre-clearance requirement in Shelby County v. Holder, many states have sought to enact voting restrictions that target African Americans and other minority groups. This resolution says and does nothing about those actions.

The resolution shows that Republican support for States' rights is trumped by anti-immigrant sentiment. An earlier version of the resolution obtained by Breitbart correctly stated that ``the Constitution allows States and localities to grant non-citizens the right to vote in non-Federal elections.'' This clause is no longer in the resolution, perhaps because Republicans understood how hypocritical it made them look, especially because the resolution is focused on condemning state and local ordinances regarding voting in non-federal elections.

Putting this resolution on the floor is nothing but a political stunt, a game designed only for political advertising for the mid-term elections forty-three days from today.

I refuse to play that cynical game with Republicans and will cast my vote as ``present'' in recognition of the fraudulent nature of these proceedings.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 25th Anniversary of the Community Health Partnership (``CHP'') and acknowledge its work and accomplishments in our Santa Clara County community.

Community health centers provide an important safety net for our most vulnerable populations. Founded in 1993, CHP's mission is to meet the medical healthcare needs of our diverse population of underserved patients. CHP pursues this mission through the collaboration of a range of member organizations with combined budgets of over $64 million.

CHP's Community Health Centers and Clinics served approximately 240,500 patients (714,600 patient encounters) in 2017 with approxiately 55 percent of patients covered by Medi-Cal, 10 percent covered by Medicare or private insurance, and 34 percent uninsured. CHP's participating health centers employ multi-lingual, culturally competent staff to administer primary care and a wide range of other health programs and services, including dental care, optometry, mental health services, family planning, prenatal services, health education, nutritional care, and recovery support groups, as well as outreach and case management.

CHP is an essential resource for local health centers to help them maximize investments in the health care safety net, improve technology tools, and navigate the changing health care environment, including the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. CHP's collaborative projects among a diverse group of organizations allow for the enhancement and expansion of available services for our low-income and most underrepresented patients.

Additionally, CHP participates in health care policy advocacy through close work with county partners on the implementation of health care reform and education of the public and relevant stakeholders regarding proposed legislation. As an active member of the California Primary Care Association, CHP offers insight on issues and policy that affect the medically underserved populations in our communities. To this end, CHP works closely with Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, Santa Clara Valley Health and Hospital System, Valley Health Plan, Santa Clara Family Health Plan, the South County Collaborative, and the Silicon Valley Council for Nonprofits.

Mr. Speaker, I hereby recognize and commend CHP for its work on improving health care access in our community. Today, we honor the Community Health Partnership for its 25 years of leadership and advocacy in the health care sector.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Gilroy Dispatch (Dispatch), the local printed news source for the City of Gilroy. On September 12, 2018, the Gilroy Dispatch will celebrate a true milestone, its 150th anniversary. I would like to commend the Dispatch for its century and a half of service, fellowship, and leadership to the Gilroy community.

Founded initially as the Gilroy Advocate, the Dispatch is one of the oldest continuous businesses in the region. The Dispatch has chronicled the community's growth from a small agricultural town to the nation's Garlic Capital.

The Dispatch has been at the heart of its Gilroy community through connecting neighbors to each other and to small businesses. It continues to serve as both a spotlight and watchdog for neighbors and readers alike on the changes and developments in Gilroy.

In its history, the Dispatch's pages have accounted for stories of all sizes and angles. It has chronicled wars, fires, earthquakes, floods as well as new schools, big harvests and citizen achievements. Despite its many awards over the years, the Dispatch is most proud of the trust it has earned by the Gilroy community.

As the Gilroy Dispatch celebrates 150 years of service to the Gilroy community, I join in congratulating them and wishing them the best for the next 150 years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 25th Anniversary of the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority. The OSA's work helps sustain and enrich our lives and is singularly important to the well- being of future generations.

The OSA was established in 1993 in response to grassroots efforts by citizen activists and the public seeking to protect Santa Clara Valley's natural resources. From a small agency, it expanded into a diverse organization with 700 currently active volunteers, serving areas of Santa Clara County outside the Mid peninsula Regional Open Space District. The OSA now owns and manages the Sierra Vista Open Space, the Rancho Canada del Oro Open Space, and the Coyote Ridge and Coyote Valley Open Space Preserves.

The OSA's accomplishments over the past 25 years are numerous and significant, involving extensive planning and collaboration with a variety of partners to develop foundational research and planning tools that guide their projects and inform their work. It is the first public agency to receive Land Trust Alliance Accreditation in 2017, ensuring best practices and standards for professional land conservation.

Currently, the OSA protects over 22,000 acres of land and provides permanent protection of habitat for 25 rare and endangered species of wildlife and plants. The OSA is the first agency in California to sponsor and develop a Regional Conservation Investment Strategy to promote the preservation of species, habitats, and other natural resources.

Year-round, the OSA maintains the availability of three open space preserves to the public and runs hundreds of different types of free environmental education programs for the public in our preserves and urban parklands. The OSA also provides over $10,000,000 in funding to over 30 Urban Open Space Projects throughout our jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the House to join me in commending the Open Space Authority for 25 years of hard work, its progress in its mission of conserving the natural environment, supporting agriculture and connecting our communities to nature is noteworthy. The OSA has been a key agency in our area to help guard our future by preserving vital natural communities, and connecting people to nature in our beautiful Santa Clara Valley.

Mr. Speaker, there are some things in this bill that probably make sense, and there are some things in this bill that I think are very poorly crafted and will have adverse implications for juvenile law or for sentencing reform.

We should have had a hearing. We should have looked into this whole

matter and come up with something that we could all support.

Now, one of the things, I hate to say, is that there is a sense of urgency here. The problem is the majority sat on their hands.

This decision of the Supreme Court was April 17 of this year. What did the committee do in response? Nothing. Nothing. No bill was introduced. No hearings were held. Then, last week, this piece of legislation was introduced and rushed to the floor without adequate thought.

So, yes, we need to act, but we need to act like grownups. We need to make sure that we are doing something that makes sense.

I am actually going to vote ``present'' on this vote, because I don't want a ``no'' vote on the portions of the bill that I know are correct having to do with child abduction.

But I can't support something that is so poorly crafted, that is a product of such disdain for the need to be serious about this issue.

If we don't want to trample on the good work we did, and we have yet to bring to fruition on sentencing reform the juvenile justice issues that loom so large in our communities, we just can't go ahead blindly on this bill.

I thought it was important to point out that the majority has a responsibility to react to court decisions, and they failed in this case.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge our government to use all of its available resources to ensure the safe and timely release of United States citizen Michael Phuong Minh Nguyen from detention in Vietnam.

Michael was captured by Vietnamese authorities on July 7th while touring Vietnam and visiting elderly relatives. He is being investigated for ``engaging in activity against the People's Government'' and is being held at the Phan Dang Luu Detention Center in the Binh Thanh District of Ho Chi Minh City.

Despite having been detained for almost a month, the Vietnamese communist government has not brought any formal charges against Michael. He has only been allowed to visit with the United States Consulate once and has not been allowed to communicate at all with his family and friends. The Vietnamese government may continue its investigation for several months, during which time Michael will have limited due process rights, including limited communication privileges, according to Vietnam's laws.

Michael's wife, Helen, wrote to me from our home state of California where she and Michael have raised four children, to ask for assistance with her husband's case. In her letter to me, Helen said: ``Our biggest concern is that without representation, the Vietnamese government will continue to hold him without probable cause, assess bogus and unwarranted charges, resulting in serious ramifications.''

The government of Vietnam has a history of arbitrarily detaining those who have peacefully exercised their legal rights and has been cracking down even harder, recently, with longer sentences. Michael Nguyen's case is a disturbing example of this, but this time the Vietnamese authorities have detained and captured one of our own citizens. As a beacon of freedom and democracy, we cannot let such arbitrary detention of one of our own citizens to stand.

I join my colleagues, who have also called for Michael Nguyen's release, in urging our government to make Michael Nguyen's release a priority and ensure his safe return home to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with my colleagues Anna Eshoo and Ro Khanna, to recognize and celebrate Intel Corporation's 50th anniversary. Intel who some call the ``most important company in the world,'' has long been an enormously significant company of the global digital economy.

On July 18, 1968--50 years ago today--Intel was founded by semiconductor pioneers Bob Noyce and Gordon Moore. One of their first hires was Andy Grove--a refugee who had immigrated from communist- controlled Hungary at the age of 20. He finished his education in the United States at the City College of New York and the University of California, Berkeley. Intel initially set about making memory chips, but within three years had invented the very first microprocessor. For the next thirty years, Noyce, Moore, and Grove were successive CEOs of Intel, during which the company's innovative, cutting-edge research, and industry leading technology profoundly changed how the world connected, communicated, and did business. Starting with just 12 employees at its founding in 1968, Intel has now grown to be the largest semiconductor manufacturer in the world, with over one hundred thousand employees globally.

Since its founding, Intel products pushed the envelope in terms of what computers and microprocessors could achieve. Today, Intel and its founders are rightfully considered icons in Silicon Valley. Bob Noyce and Gordon Moore's decision to strike out on their own with a plan to pursue superior technology helped ignite the startup culture that still defines Silicon Valley to this day. Bob Noyce earned his nickname as ``Mayor of Silicon Valley,'' and was instrumental in crafting the casual, hands-on work environment that remains the standard in Silicon Valley. He provided counsel to countless younger CEO's, among them Steve Jobs. Gordon Moore is the renowned author of ``Moore's Law,'' the guiding principle of the semiconductor industry, which predicts a doubling of the number of transistors on an integrated circuit every two years. Remarkably, that standard still holds true today. Andy Grove's encouragement of innovation, risk-taking, and open communication drove the company to ever-higher levels of success and competitiveness, and has had a lasting impact on the culture of Silicon Valley.

For the past 50 years, Intel has been an engine of innovation in Silicon Valley. Just last week, the San Jose Mercury News reported that--were the San Francisco Bay Area a nation of its own--it would be the 19th largest economy in the world. The astounding success of Silicon Valley can be attributed to many things, but few companies have played such an integral role in the early molding of Silicon Valley into the worldwide leader of innovation and technology it is today. Bob Noyce, Gordon Moore, and Andy Grove built a legacy and a company to be proud of, and we join in offering our sincere congratulations to the Intel Corporation for their 50 years of innovation and excellence.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to make in order the Quigley amendment to prevent the Russians from interfering in American elections.

Mr. Speaker, I support fair and humane enforcement of our immigration laws, but that is not what this resolution is about. It is nothing but a ploy to distract us from critical issues facing our country.

A most urgent issue now is the need to reunify thousands of children, including babies, who were forcefully torn from their parents' arms at the border. Despite court orders requiring reunification, more than 2,000 remain separated from their parents.

This bill does nothing to address that humanitarian crisis, a crisis created by President Trump's so-called zero-tolerance policy.

The bill does nothing, for example, to more quickly reunify children like Jefferson, a 6-year-old boy taken from his father after traveling together from Guatemala, seeking asylum. They were kept apart for almost 2 heart-wrenching months.

When they were finally reunified 3 days ago, the traumatic effects of the separation were clear. Jefferson was unemotional, with a vacant look in his eyes. He thought, for those 2 excruciating months, that his father no longer loved him or that he was dead.

Jefferson had a cough, bruises, and a rash all over his body. It is not clear whether Jefferson will ever fully recover emotionally.

There are many more kids like Jefferson who remain separated from their parents.

As Members of Congress, we can't sit on the sidelines as witnesses to government-sponsored child abuse. We must take concrete steps to end this tragedy and pass legislation to prevent it from ever happening again, and this resolution doesn't do that. This resolution does not even acknowledge the plight of babies separated from their mothers, nor does it make any recommendations for family reunification.

This resolution is nothing more than a feeble attempt at political gamesmanship. The resolution shows the Republican majority is unwilling to solve our immigration crisis, just as they are unwilling to tackle rising healthcare costs, wage stagnation, a pending trade war, and the President's lovefest with Russia.

With a little more than a week left before the August recess, the Republican majority is more interested in political games than actually governing.

Rather than doing anything meaningful for the American people, we are wasting our time on a political stunt. It is just shameful. I refuse to play this game. I intend to vote ``present'' on this meaningless resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, there are lots wrong with these bills. I will discuss that during the debate on the bills. This is about the rule. For my friends on the other side of the aisle, they need to understand that this is a self-executing rule. When they vote ``yes'' on this rule, they are voting to strip $100 billion from funding President Trump's wall.

Let me say that again. A vote for this rule is a vote to take $100 billion out of building President Trump's wall. I want them to understand that they are going to have to go home and explain to their constituents why they voted to strip $100 billion out of funding President Trump's wall.

Madam Speaker, this is an anti-immigrant bill. It slashes legal immigration. It will injure the ag industry. It criminalizes nearly the entire undocumented population. It will undermine public safety and removes critical protections for families and children, and it even fails to provide a pathway to legal permanent residence for Dreamers.

Sometimes my friends across the aisle say the problem with immigration is we don't have assimilation. You don't get assimilation when you create a permanent underclass of people who are Americans in every way but their paperwork.

It eliminates family-based categories, and this is the relatives of Americans. American citizens and legal permanent residents, forget it. You are not going to be able to get your family members in if this bill passes.

It mandates the use of E-Verify, which would be highly disruptive to restaurants, hotels, and other industries, and the changes in the ag worker provision are just a fig leaf.

The bill transforms a civil law violation into a crime so that undocumented immigrants, including the parents of Dreamers the bill purports to help, become criminals overnight.

It would accelerate separation of kids from parents when 11 million American workers suddenly become subject to prosecution.

Undermining our asylum system by establishing impossibly high evidentiary burdens, it removes protections, as I have said, and it does nothing to reunite the thousands of children who have been taken away from their parents at the border. Instead, it facilitates putting mothers in the cages with their toddlers.

So why are we debating a bill that nearly everyone, even many in the Republican Party, think is a terrible idea? I fear it is because the very extreme elements of the Republican Party have become the loudest and the most powerful.

I continue to have faith in the good people of our country. The American people spoke out loudly against President Trump's family separation policy. They couldn't stand seeing little children, babies, and toddlers ripped from their mother's arms. And we saw a reversal, but it is not a solution, because locking up mothers, putting those mothers in the cages with their toddlers is not the solution to this problem.

We are not going to let hatred, bigotry, and xenophobia prevail in this country.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a step in the wrong direction in so many ways.

I wish that we had had an opportunity to sit down, reason together, and come up with a plan that really serves our country. That didn't happen.

Here is what the result was: The Chamber of Commerce has just reported that the Niskanen Center that they have relied on indicates that, if this bill became law, the U.S. would lose $319 billion in GDP. That would be the impact, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for adopting this bill.

And I wonder what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are really doing by turning every undocumented person in the United States, currently a civil law violation, into a crime. We are now creating 11 million prosecution opportunities.

At the same time, The Washington Post is just reporting, this is the headline: ``Trump Administration Will Stop Prosecuting Migrant Parents Who Cross the Border Illegally with Children, Official Says.''

What are we doing here? We are doing a bill that would incarcerate families and children to pursue a policy that the administration now says they don't intend to pursue.

Now, I don't have a lot of trust in the Trump administration because it changes daily.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to take a step back here.

Your President has left you out on a limb. He just sawed that limb off for a bill that does damage to the country for a policy that he now has apparently abandoned. This is a ridiculous situation here.