Judy Chu

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Sequestration wasn't written to be good fiscal policy. It was never intended to be policy, period. These automatic cuts would deeply hurt our environment. This Congress has already tried to roll back our strongest environmental laws. Now we're on the verge of setting a new low. Sequestration could force the national parks and forests to turn away visitors. Our Forest Service, which fights wildfires, might not have enough money to put out all the flames. Agencies protecting us from harmful toxic waste may have difficulty going after our worst polluters. This is no solution to our deficit problems. Now is the time for both sides to work toward a responsible compromise. As I said before, sequestration was never intended to happen, so let's not let it.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a great loss to our community, Lt. Victor B. Schoon, who passed away on September 25, 2012 at the age of 93. My heart goes out to his loving children, Andra Lew, JoAnna Schoon-Kormo, and Marcus Victor Schoon; his grandchildren, Michael Lew, Kenneth Schoon, Juliarma Marie Schoon, Eric Konno and Allison Konno; and the rest of his family, friends and loved ones. He now goes to join his loving wife, Dora Song, who passed away in 1999. When Lt. Schoon enlisted in the Army Air Corps in 1943, he did so during a time when Chinese Americans could not vote, could not immigrate to the United States, and could not even become citizens. But he enlisted anyway, regardless of the prejudice and discrimination he faced. Such was his patriotism to his country. Within two short years of his enlistment, Lt. Schoon had become a First Lieutenant piloting his own B-17 over the European Theatre during World War II. He served with distinction, stationed with the 340th Bomb Squadron, 97th Bomb Group based in Foggia, Italy between 1944 and 1945. During that time he saw air combat over the Balkans, Southern France, Germany, Rome, Arno and the North Appennines. And thanks to his bravery, skill and flying prowess, he flew 50 successful missions, bringing all of his 9 crew members home safely, and contributing to the Allies' defeat of the Axis powers and the end of the war. For his efforts he was rewarded with the European, African and Middle Eastern Theater Service Medal; an Air Medal with 2-Oak Leaf Cluster; and a Distinguished Unit Badge. He went on to receive an honorable discharge, enrolled at the University of California, Berkeley and earn a bachelor's degree in architecture. He became a successful architect, drawing custom office buildings for various prestigious firms and opened his own architectural firm in Hollywood. But this selfless patriot, who dropped out of high school to help provide for his nine siblings after his parents' death, who enlisted in the military despite the prejudice of the times and great personal danger to himself, and who went on to serve his community so admirably, died before receiving the Distinguished Flying Cross Medal he so deserved. I urge my House colleagues to join me in honoring Lt. Schoon for his record of bravery, indomitable spirit and remarkable service to his community and to our nation.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. I rise today as a proud cosponsor of House Resolution 785, condemning the hate crimes, bullying, and brutal violence perpetrated against Sikh Americans and all acts of violence against Sikh Gurdwaras in the United States. In the face of unrelenting and unprovoked violence, it is clear that action must be taken. The Sikh community has a long history of contributing to this Nation. Sikh farmers shaped California's agriculture industry, farming a third of the land and providing nature's bounty for others to enjoy. The very first Asian American to be elected to the U.S. Congress was a Sikh American, Dalip Singh Saund, elected in California in 1957. And Sikh temples all across the country have shown their beautiful spirit by giving free food, called langar, to everybody in the neighborhood who is hungry. And yet time and time again we see the good deeds of Sikh Americans met with undue violence from others. And in the wake of 9/11, this behavior spiked sharply. Just days after the attacks took place-- as the soot still lingered over Manhattan and smoke still smoldered from a field in Pennsylvania--Balbir Singh Sodhi became the first victim of misplaced retaliation. He was in the gas station he had worked his entire life to own when a gunman shot at him and took his life. Through the years the violence has not abated. Last year, in northern California, Surinder Singh and Gurmej Atwal, two elderly Sikh Americans, were doing what they always did every afternoon, taking a walk in the neighborhood, when suddenly they were shot. They were murdered in cold blood, but not for money or jealousy or revenge. They were murdered because of their turbans. And then there were the overwhelmingly shocking events of August 5 of this year in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The Sikh community was peacefully preparing meals for Sunday prayer inside their gurdwara. But that peace was shattered without warning at the hands of a gunman filled with hate and rage. He fired indiscriminately and without cause, and when the smoke cleared, six innocent people lay dead. Although it has been more than a decade since 9/11, hysteria and stereotyping are still far too common. We must combat the growing wave of violence and intolerance that threatens the safety and civil liberties of the Sikh American community. Today, while the FBI tracks the overall number of hate crimes taking place, it doesn't even record attacks specifically on Sikhs, despite the fact that we've seen over and over again that Sikhs are singled out over and over again because of their appearance and faith. That's why this resolution not only denounces the violence befalling this community; we're calling on the Department of Justice to finally begin documenting and quantifying hate crimes committed against Sikh Americans. As many as three out of four Sikh boys endure torment and bullying from their peers. And so we're urging educators across the Nation to help end the epidemic of bullying against Sikh youths. We're urging law enforcement officers in every locality to do all they can to prevent violence against this and all communities. America was founded on the principles of religious freedom, acceptance, and tolerance. Let's make sure that every American can live safely and in peace. Let's make sure that every American is protected.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. I rise today in opposition to this bill which will further damage our already broken immigration system. I strongly support increasing visas for STEM foreign students so they can stay, work, and innovate here. But while this bill claims to do that, it actually reduces the number of overall visas available and lets unused STEM visas disappear by 2014. The bill also gets rid of 50,000 legal immigrant visas each year under the Diversity Visa Program, which gives every immigrant, no matter their background, a chance of immigrating to the United States and is so important to immigrants who don't fall into other categories. Supporters of legal immigration should not have to kill other immigration programs to help our economy maintain its competitive edge. This is not a zero-sum game. Anyone in support of fair legal immigration should oppose this bill. And I urge both sides to come together to work on a bipartisan STEM visa bill that will help keep our economy competitive without making our backlogged immigration system worse.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, at the end of what Republicans consider to be a grueling work week consisting of 2\1/2\ whole days, Republicans are heading home once again to take the next 2 months off. The Republican-led ``Do-Nothing Congress'' was in session for a grand total of 8 days this month, and it took 5 weeks off before that. During their time here in Washington, Republicans made sure to vote to end Medicare as we know it, increase costs for seniors, and give tax breaks to millionaires and companies that ship jobs overseas. But on addressing the ongoing jobs crisis in this country, they did nothing. On providing tax cuts for the middle class and small business, they did nothing. On working towards a bipartisan solution to the looming fiscal cliff, they left the American people hanging by continuing to do nothing. The hardworking men and women who call this country home deserve so much better. They certainly deserve better than nothing.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, we know that in too many states and districts across the country, students with the greatest needs are being taught by teachers with little or no training, including those enrolled in alternative route teacher preparation programs. That's why I am so glad this legislation requires the Department of Education to provide Congress--and the nation--with comprehensive information on the extent to which our highest-need students, including students with disabilities, English learners, students from rural communities, and low-income students, are being taught by teachers-in-training who are enrolled in alternative route programs, disaggregated by state and district, as well as by student subgroups. The data that will be included in this report should be made public and disseminated to parents and other interested parties so that is understandable and actionable. Specifically, the provision requires: The Secretary of Education must submit a report to Congress by 12/31/ 13 that provides a comprehensive picture, with state-level and LEA data, on the extent to which the following categories of students are taught by alternative route teachers-in-training who are deemed ``highly qualified'' pursuant to 34 CFR 200.56(a)(2)(ii): students with disabilities, English learners, students in rural areas, and students from low-income families. 34 CFR 200.56(a)(2)(ii) is the regulation that allows individuals participating in alternative route programs but who have not yet completed their full state certification to be labeled ``highly qualified.'' This regulation was struck down by the Ninth Circuit in the Renee v. Duncan lawsuit, but written into statute in the December 2010 CR. To produce the report required by this amendment, states and LEAs will be required to compile the data that they are already required to have under Section 1111(h)(6)(A) of NCLB regarding the professional qualifications of all their teachers, including: ``Whether the teacher has met State qualification and licensing criteria for the grade levels and subject areas in which the teacher provides instruction. Whether the teacher is teaching under emergency or other provisional status through which State qualification or licensing criteria have been waived. The baccalaureate degree major of the teacher and any other graduate certification or degree held by the teacher, and the field of discipline of the certification or degree. This data will provide essential information to parents, to educators and to policy makers so that informed decisions can be made so that we can strengthen one of our nation's most valuable assets, our public schools. We will be in a much better position to look at our neediest students and our neediest rural and urban school districts and determine the extent to which well prepared teachers are or are not equitably distributed. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to receiving this important report from the Secretary on December 31, 2013.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. It's been 11 years since blue skies over New York were blackened with soot, 11 years since the Pentagon sustained its only attack in history, and 11 years since the heroism of our countrymen over a quiet field in Pennsylvania. Today, we remember and honor all of the lives lost on this day 11 years ago. In the aftermath of 9/11, we mourned those who lost their lives. What had seemed so far from possible just 1 day before was ever present from that moment on, and we will never forget. From the ashes came stories of heartbreak, like twins born on September 15 who never knew their father. For them and so many others, it's not 11 years; it's every single day. As we reflect on this anniversary of 9/11, let us remember those 3,000 people, the fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, and brave first responders, and the values of this country for which they lost their lives, our tolerance, our democracy, and our freedom.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program has been an invaluable source of funding for state and local law enforcement jurisdictions across the country, including in my district. Without this broad-based source of funding, safety in our communities would suffer. This invaluable grant program supports a wide range of areas including from crime prevention and education to technology improvements for police departments. In addition, the Byrne JAG Program provides resources for body armor, an area that I highlighted during action on H.R. 6062 in the Judiciary Committee, of which I am a Member. The grant program allows local law enforcement agencies and other grantees to purchase equipment, which can include bulletproof and stab-resistant vests. Although the Bureau of Justice Assistance (``BJA'') is not required to track body armor purchases with Byrne JAG funds, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study released in February of this year, roughly 14 percent of grantees surveyed had used JAG funds to buy body armor in 2010. Without a doubt, personal body armor plays a critical role in saving law enforcement officers from disabilities and death. As a matter of fact, FBI data shows that the risk of death for officers who did not wear body armor was 14 times greater than those who did. Despite this finding, the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that only 71% of local police departments require field officers to wear body armor at least some of the time, while only 59% of departments require the officers to wear protective armor at all times. The benefits from wearing body armor are evident, and yet . . . many departments still don't require it. Recently, the U.S. Attorney General instituted a new requirement for Fiscal Year 2011 grantees seeking matching funds from the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act (BVPA)--grantees now need to have mandatory body armor wear policies in place. This means that uniformed officers on patrol are required to wear a protective vest. Unfortunately, this same mandate is not included in the Byrne JAG program. This is why I proposed an amendment in Committee--similar to an amendment proposed to the BVPA reauthorization by Senator Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and accepted by that Committee--that would have unified this mandatory wear policy and extended it to the Byrne JAG program. Chairman Smith graciously noted his willingness to work with me on this front, and so I agreed to withdraw my amendment, but the issue is still worth mentioning on the floor since it is such an important issue. I welcome the interest of any of my colleagues who would also like to work with me on ensuring the extension of mandatory wear policies for body armor to additional federal grantees. I highlighted another issue when proposing my amendment in the Judiciary Committee, which is body armor fit--an issue that concerns all law enforcement officers, but particularly the growing number of women in law enforcement. According to Bureau of Justice Statistics, the number of women in local law enforcement grew from 7.6% in 1987 to 12% in 2007. In 2007, women accounted for 18% of sworn officers in 12 of the 13 largest local police departments. The need for properly fitted body armor for women is extremely important. Much of the armor currently offered is designed for male officers and simply does not take into account the anatomical differences. This of course leads to poor fit and discomfort. Fit issues also apply to male officers, who we know also come in different shapes and sizes. And whenever officers put on body armor that is not properly fitted, they are exposing themselves to greater harm since they are not as protected as they could be. The International Association of Chiefs of Police/DuPont Kevlar Survivors' Club (Survivors' Club) has documented more than 3,150 saves from disability or death by wearing of or use of protective body armor. As noted in a July 19th letter to me from Retired Police Chief Ron McBride, Program Manager for Survivors' Club, ``It is appropriate to ensure that taxpayers' dollars expended on providing body armor results in consistent wear of an issued vest. Protective body armor left in an officer's locker provides zero protection. Unique fit is essential to optimizing protection. A well fitted armor provides best coverage of an officer's torso and is more comfortable to wear. These two issues equate to enhanced officer safety.'' This is why the second part of my amendment offered in committee would have required that body armor purchased with Byrne JAG funding be uniquely fitted to each officer, including female officers. The issue of properly fitted body armor should not be taken lightly when considering the overall safety of law enforcement officers. Body armor saves lives, but only if it fits properly and is worn by officers. I look forward to continuing to work with the Chairman, Ranking Member Conyers, and other interested Members in these areas.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Few things are as sacred as the right to vote. Generations have fought, bled, and died so that you and I can have a voice in our democracy. This is why we must guard against measures that take this away, like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which prohibited all Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens so that they would not be able to vote. It lasted 60 years, until 1943, preventing people who'd lived in this country for decades from exercising their voices. Laws like this, poll taxes, or literacy tests, should be a thing of the past in America. Every U.S. citizen, no matter what their background, should have access to the polls. But today, State governments across the country are enacting laws making it much harder for as many as 5 million Americans to vote, requiring, for instance, photo IDs for grandmothers who voted for years but no longer drive. When barely half of Americans vote, we should not be erecting more barriers to democracy. We should be removing obstacles. We must protect the right to vote.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Thanks to the Supreme Court decision on Citizens United, corporations can now make unlimited donations without disclosing who they are. The result is a government for hire to the highest bidder. Think about it. Are you a corrupt oil company that hates those annoying safeguards that protect Americans' health, but restrict your ability to drill, baby, drill? No problem. Find a candidate that will turn a blind eye and donate until they win. Or maybe you're a billionaire on Wall Street who leveraged away the savings of the American people for a big paycheck in 2008, but now you're being held back by Wall Street reform. Not to worry. Buy a candidate with a super PAC. Nobody needs to know who you even are. Twice this week, the DISCLOSE Act, which would end this madness and provide transparency to who's contributing in elections, has come up in the Senate. And twice this week, Republicans blocked it on a party-line vote. Americans should ask the GOP: Why?

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. After returning from Iraq, John started college. He didn't pick a major right away, instead, exploring different subjects. But he struggled. It was hard for him to focus; and after what he had been through, he couldn't relate to his classmates. Soon, he had used up his GI Bill benefits and couldn't afford to graduate. What John's story tells us is that even though we vigorously train our soldiers, we give veterans little guidance to succeed in school. So I'm introducing the Student Veterans Academic Counseling Enhancement Act, endorsed by the American Legion, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. This bill provides regular one-on-one academic counseling to GI Bill students no matter where they go to school, and it tracks veteran graduation rates to help ensure academic and career success. This Student Veterans Act will ensure taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly, while helping veterans graduate and get good jobs. We owe it to those who have sacrificed so much for us, our veterans.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Senate 2061, the Former Charleston Naval Base Land Exchange Act of 2012. This bill authorizes the Secretary of Department of Homeland Security to convey a parcel of Federal land in North Charleston, South Carolina, to the South Carolina State Ports Authority in exchange for specified lands owned by the Ports Authority. The land to be transferred by the Department of Homeland Security formerly comprised a portion of the Charleston Naval Base but is now vacant. DHS currently leases the land it plans to acquire in this transfer and uses it to house some of the operations of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center also known as FLETC. The Charleston Harbor area includes the fourth busiest international container shipping port in the United States, with one passenger and four container port terminals, as well as numerous privately held terminals. The waterways in this area contain shipping channels, rivers, bays, creeks, streams, the Intracoastal Waterway, and the Atlantic Ocean. These waterways provide a realistic training environment for FLETC's Maritime Law Enforcement and Port Security students. Specifically, the FLETC Charleston facility is one of Charleston's three residential training centers and includes a variety of specialized capabilities for maritime law enforcement and port security training. The facilities include four deepwater piers for large commercial or military vessels and three sets of floating docks for smaller vessels. Students at the FLETC Charleston facility engage in programs such as commercial vessel, boarding, training, maritime tactical operations training, and seaport security antiterrorism training. All of these programs are critical to protecting our Nation from the potential of a variety of criminal and terrorist threats. By allowing a mutually beneficial transfer of the lands between the Port Authority and DHS, we are advancing the important mission of the FLETC. I urge my colleagues to support Senate 2061, which the Senate has already adopted, so that it may become law. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. If you want proof that Congress is dysfunctional, that it is putting partisanship ahead of all else, look no further than today's vote to hold Attorney General Holder in contempt. In office, Holder has tirelessly pursued justice for all communities. He has helped prevent mortgage fraud, fought gang violence, protected intellectual property rights, and worked to ensure every American has the right to vote. We should let the Attorney General enforce our Nation's laws, not make his job harder. The contempt vote against Holder is unprecedented, unjustified, and unfounded. Never in the 223-year history of the House have we held an Attorney General in contempt. Yet, today, we will do just that in this ridiculous partisan stunt. Congress should be creating jobs, not wasting taxpayer money putting on a political sideshow during an election year.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Madam Speaker, 30 years ago, Vincent Chin, a young Chinese American engineer, was celebrating his impending wedding in Detroit, Michigan, when two unemployed autoworkers started shouting at him, saying, ``It is you Japanese who are taking away our jobs.'' They chased him down and bashed his head in with a baseball bat. Vincent's murderers were only punished with a $3,000 fine and got off without even spending a day in jail. In the meanwhile, instead of going to his wedding, Vincent's family went to his funeral. This injustice led to the emergence of a national Asian Pacific American identity and movement. This week, as chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific Caucus, I will be introducing a resolution on the significance of the 30th anniversary of Vincent's death. His story remains an important reminder of why we must always combat the dangers of xenophobia and scapegoating.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Howard Berman for his help passing H. Res. 683, an expression of regret for the House passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Due to a clerical error, Mr. Berman was added as a cosponsor when he should be listed as an original cosponsor. Howard was a key ally in the passage of this legislation. Because of his positive relationships with Members across the aisle, he successfully convinced key Republican lawmakers to support this effort. He was very influential in getting this bill through the House Judiciary Committee, and was with me every step of the way as we pushed to get a vote on the floor. This effort required a great deal of negotiation with the Republican leaders in the House. And who was by my side? Howard Berman! The community couldn't ask for a better or more dedicated champion to their cause. Representative Berman has been a dedicated supporter since the introduction of the original resolution H. Res. 282, which he also cosponsored. Without Howard's support, we would not have made history when the House unanimously passed an expression of regret for the discriminatory Chinese Exclusion Act on June 18, 2012.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the so- called Conservation and Economic Growth Act, H.R. 2578. On behalf of my constituents and millions of other Americans who believe in protecting our public lands and natural resources, I am opposed to this bill. This bill is yet another in a long string of anti-environmental assaults that the Republican majority has put forth relentlessly throughout the last two years. Most of its 14 titles do nothing to promote conservation or economic growth. Rather, they advance ineffective and unnecessary policies that undermine long-standing, successful laws like the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Wilderness Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. One of the most concerning provisions of this bill seeks to create a 100-mile zone along the northern and southern U.S. borders that would allow U.S. Customs and Border Protection to circumvent laws protecting Native rights, clean water, clean air, wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities in areas rich in hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation opportunities in National Parks, Forests, refuges and recreation areas. This undermines the balance between security and preservation of public lands, putting at risk some of America's most renowned natural treasures such as Joshua Tree National Park in my home state of California. And the Department of Homeland Security doesn't even want it, calling this provision ``unnecessary and bad policy.'' Another provision would reverse, for the first time in Congressional history, the National Wild and Scenic River designation for part of the Lower Merced River in California. The Merced River was given this designation in 1992, under the administration of George H.W. Bush, and Wild and Scenic River protections have successfully preserved miles of pristine U.S. waters, enjoyed by a vast outdoor tourism, sporting and recreation industry. The Merced River runs through Yosemite Valley, one of America's most popular natural wonders, and is a tributary to the San Joaquin River that provides most of the water supply for California's agricultural industry. This provision would remove vital protections for one of California's most important water life-lines in a never-before-seen manner, and undermine valuable economic activity among some of the most hard-hit California communities. The bill would allow the clear-cutting of America's largest remaining old-growth temperate rainforest in the Tsongas National Forest of Alaska; reverse the prohibition of vehicle use on the fragile habitats of Cape Hatteras National Seashore; and mandate the killing of sea lions in the Pacific Northwest in order to protect endangered fish species. . . . This is the Republicans' conservation and jobs bill: killing sea lions and destroying landscapes and habitat across the nation. As a leading member on the House Small Business Committee and a firm defender of environmental protection, I believe striking the right balance of policy has always been key to our economic growth and our strength as a nation. H.R. 2578 does not accomplish that goal. In fact it does much to undermine it. H.R. 2578 is wrong for America. I strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill, and any measure introduced that undermines the conservation of America's treasured public lands and natural resources.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. I yield one more minute to the gentleman from California.

Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 683. First, I want to thank Chairman Lamar Smith and Subcommittee Chair Trent Franks of the Judiciary Committee for all their work on this resolution. I appreciate it so much. We have come together across party lines to show that no matter what side of the aisle we sit on, Congress can make amends for the past, no matter how long ago those violations occurred. It is because we have worked together in a bipartisan way that we will make history today. Today, for the first time in 130 years, the House of Representatives will vote on a bill that expresses regret for the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, one of the most discriminatory acts in American history. Over a century ago, the Chinese came here in search of a better life. During the California Gold Rush, the Chinese came to the United States to make something of themselves. Their blood, sweat, and tears built the first transcontinental railroad, connecting the people of our Nation. They opened our mines, constructed the levees, and became the backbone of farm production. Their efforts helped build America. But as the economy soured in the 1870s, the Chinese became scapegoats. They were called racial slurs, were spat upon in the streets, and even brutally murdered. The harsh conditions they faced were evident in the Halls of Congress. By the time 1882 came around, Members of Congress were competing with each other to get the most discriminatory law passed and routinely made speeches on the House floor against the so-called ``Mongolian horde.'' Representative Albert Shelby Willis from Kentucky fought particularly hard for a Chinese Exclusion Act. In his floor speech, he said the Chinese were an invading race. He called them aliens with sordid and unrepublican habits. He declared that the Pacific States had been cursed with the evils of Chinese immigration and that they disturbed the peace and order of society. The official House committee report accompanying the bill claimed that the Chinese ``retain their distinctive peculiarities and characteristics, refusing to assimilate themselves to our institutions and remaining a separate and distinct class, entrenched behind immovable prejudices; that their ignorance or disregard of sanitary laws, as evidenced in their habits of life, breeds disease, pestilence and death.'' So on April 17, 1882, under a simple suspension of the rules, the House passed the Chinese Exclusion Act. It prevented them from becoming naturalized citizens. It prevented them from ever having the right to vote. It also prevented the Chinese--and the Chinese alone--from immigrating. But this was only the beginning. As the years passed, the House built upon this act, increasing the discriminatory restrictions on the Chinese. Two years later, the House made clear that any ethnically Chinese laborer, even if he were not from China but from somewhere like Hong Kong or the Philippines, was banned from U.S. shores. Four years later, the House passed the Scott Act. This bill prohibited all Chinese laborers from reentering the United States, if they ever left, even if they were legal residents in the U.S. and even if they had the certificates of return that should have guaranteed their right of return. This prevented approximately 20,000 legal U.S. residents who had gone abroad, including 600 on ships who were literally en route back to the United States, from returning to their families or their homes. With little floor debate, the Scott Act passed the House unanimously. In 1892, when the Chinese Exclusion Act was set to expire, the House extended it for another decade, but it increased restrictions further. It made the Chinese the only residents who could not receive bail after applying for a writ of habeas corpus, that being to protest an unjust imprisonment. It made them the only people in America who had to carry papers, or certificates of residence, with them at all times. If they couldn't produce the proper documents, authorities threw them into prison or out of the country regardless of whether they were U.S. citizens or not. Legally, the only means by which this could be stopped is if a white person testified on their behalf. In 1898, the U.S. annexed Hawaii and the Philippines, making them U.S. Territories; and while other residents of the territories could come and go between their homes and the U.S., who did the House make sure to exclude? Only the Chinese. Then, in 1904, the House made the Chinese Exclusion Act permanent. This act lasted for 60 long years. It was not until 1943 that this law was repealed, but it was only because of World War II, when the United States needed to maintain a critical military alliance with China. U.S. enemies were pointing to the Chinese Exclusion Act as proof that the U.S. was anti-Chinese, and the U.S. had to erase that perception. However, Congress made no formal acknowledgment that these laws were wrong. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first and only Federal law in our history that excluded a single group of people from immigration on no basis other than its race, and the effects of this act produced deep scars on the Chinese American community. Families were split apart permanently without the ability to naturalize as citizens and to vote. The community was disenfranchised. Because immigration had been so severely restricted, few women could come, and the ratio of males to females was as high as 20 1. Many Chinese American males could not have families and were forced to die completely alone. If they did try to marry, they were forced to go abroad, and families were separated. The family of Jean Quan, mayor of Oakland, had been here legally since 1880. Her father went abroad to marry a woman in China in 1920, but had to leave her behind along with her children. When the Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed over 25 years later, his wife was finally able to come and have Jean in the United States, but the siblings did not know each other for decades. The Chinese, like my grandfather, did not have the legal right to become naturalized citizens. He had been here legally since 1904, but unlike non-Chinese immigrants, he was forced to register and carry a certificate of residence at all times for almost 40 years or else be deported. He could only be saved if a white person vouched for him. These laws are why we ask for this expression of regret. Last October, the U.S. Senate did its part to right history by passing its own resolution of regret for these hateful laws. It did so unanimously with bipartisan support. Today, the House should also issue its expression of regret. It is for my grandfather and for all Chinese Americans that we must pass this resolution, for those who were told for six decades by the U.S. Government that the land of the free wasn't open to them. We must finally and formally acknowledge these ugly laws that were incompatible with America's founding principles. We must express the sincere regret that Chinese Americans deserve. By doing so, we will acknowledge that discrimination has no place in our society, and we will reaffirm our strong commitment to preserving the civil rights and constitutional protections for all people of every color, ever race, and from every background. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. CHU. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, Representative Mike Honda.

Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa, Representative Eni Faleomavaega. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today is historic. This is a very significant day in the Chinese American community. It is an expression that discrimination has no place in our society and that the promise of equality is available to all. This is only the fourth such apology in the last 25 years. In 1988, President Reagan signed the bill apologizing for the Japanese American interment during World War II. In 1993, Congress apologized to Hawaiians for the U.S.-led overthrow of their monarchy. In 2008, the House issued an apology to African Americans on behalf of the people of the United States for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow. This bill was a huge undertaking, requiring the efforts of Chinese Americans and their supporters all across the Nation. Without the dedication of countless community organizations and grassroots advocates across the country, none of this would have happened. I thank them, and I thank all the Congress Members from both sides of the aisle, including the 50 cosponsors of the bill and especially Chairman Lamar Smith, for their support. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. CHU

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

Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3668, the Counterfeit Drug Penalty Enhancement Act of 2012, would increase the maximum criminal penalties for trafficking in counterfeit drugs. Counterfeit drugs are a serious public threat to all Americans for several reasons. To begin with, a person who unknowingly consumes a counterfeit medication may be harmed by dangerous but undisclosed substances in the drug. As a Food and Drug Administration representative testified at a hearing before the Judiciary Committee's Crime Subcommittee, ``a counterfeit drug could be made using ingredients that are toxic to patients and processed under poorly controlled and unsanitary conditions.'' Also, an individual who consumes a counterfeit drug is deprived of meaningful treatment that can respond to life-threatening illnesses. Consider, for example, a patient suffering from a heart ailment or a child who is desperately fighting an aggressive life-threatening infection. The consequences of consuming an ineffective counterfeit drug are blatantly obvious. By receiving these counterfeit drugs instead of the real medications that they require, each of these individuals would be denied receiving the effective treatment that they must quickly be given in order to address their illnesses. Finally, the proliferation of counterfeit drugs poses a grave nationwide risk to the public health and safety of all of our citizens. Current technology and distribution channels present the real danger that a very large quantity of these counterfeit drugs could enter into the marketplace where they can injure and possibly risk the lives of many Americans before they are even detected. The Food and Drug Administration is working with medical product supply chain stakeholders to respond to this emerging threat, but we need to do more. It is critically important for us to reinforce our criminal law so that it clearly addresses the national menace presented by large-scale, intentional trafficking in counterfeit drugs. Under current law, trafficking in counterfeit drugs receives the same criminal penalty as trafficking in other less dangerous items. This shortcoming in current law explains why the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator supports H.R. 3668, as stated in her recent annual report to Congress. This bill not only appropriately recognizes the need to treat crimes involving counterfeit medications more seriously, but also requires the Justice Department to prioritize its investigatory and prosecutorial efforts with respect to these crimes. I am particularly pleased that during the Judiciary Committee's markup of the bill, an amendment offered by my colleague, Congressman Bobby Scott, was adopted that would direct the Attorney General to give increased priority to efforts to investigate and prosecute these offenses. As amended, this measure appropriately recognizes that, while penalty increases may be warranted, effective deterrence depends mostly on the likelihood of apprehension and conviction of offenders. I commend the efforts of my colleagues, Congressman Patrick Meehan and Congresswoman Linda Sanchez, for introducing this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3668, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. If this amendment passed, it would have a negative effect on many immigrants, many of whom work hard and play by the rules and are here legally, but may not have the ability to speak English well. If this amendment passed, innocent people could be harmed. Foreign- born naturalized citizens would be at risk of erroneous detention and deportation by ICE. Not only that, detainees with serious, possibly life-threatening, medical needs would be placed in great peril due to the inability to make medical requests and communicate effectively with medical service providers. If this amendment passed, lives could be lost because DHS and FEMA would have difficulty issuing danger warnings and evacuation instructions, as well as other critical notices in other languages during times of national emergency or catastrophe. If this amendment passed, it would be harder for people to become citizens. That is because DHS would be prevented from providing foreign-language assistance to the elderly and disabled immigrants and refugees seeking to naturalize and become U.S. citizens. We want immigrants to be fully assimilated in American society. This amendment would stop this process and, in fact, potentially cause great harm to many who do not deserve it. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Ms. CHU

Ms. CHU. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment to increase the resources for the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy, or ARPA E. ARPA E invests in the success of our entrepreneurs by allowing them to innovate in high-reward energy projects. This critical investment turns ideas into new technologies, which create new companies and even whole industries. These companies start out as small businesses, which we know are the greatest drivers of our economy. ARPA E is exactly the kind of forward thinking we need to spur American innovation and create well-paying jobs in cutting-edge fields. ARPA E is also vital to achieving the kind of 21st century energy solutions America needs to increase our energy efficiency, lower consumer costs, and curb the damage to our environment. While other countries around the world are promoting these kinds of programs, we are letting ourselves fall behind. In the midst of one of the worst recessions in U.S. history, we are turning our backs on energy innovation, where we once led the way. This makes no sense, and it must stop. We should not be cutting ARPA E, we should be expanding it. That is exactly what this amendment will do. ARPA E gives universities, entrepreneurs, and other innovators resources to develop their ideas. It holds forums to bring researchers together to share expertise, and educate future innovators. Some research ARPA E has supported includes high-tech electric car batteries, breakthroughs in energy grid technologies, and algae-based biofuels. These developments hold the power to revolutionize the way America produces and consumes energy. This is not science-fiction; it is already science-fact. But it needs the support and vision of my colleagues in Congress in order to continue. In my home State of California we have ambitious energy standards that we need to work hard to meet in the next few years. The underlying bill increases research and development funds for fossil fuels by $207 million more than these programs received last year. We are going backwards. This amendment does not gut fossil fuels research and development, but it does bring funding levels in line with the President's request while increasing funding for ARPA E in line with the President's request. Let's stop going backwards; let's stop selling America short. Instead, let America do what it does best: innovate, grow, and lead. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.