Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commend Uplift Family Services, the oldest charitable institution in Santa Clara County. Uplift Family Services, previously known as EMQFF, is a non-profit behavioral health organization for children and families and will celebrate its 150th anniversary this year. Today, Uplift Family Services is one of the largest family centered treatment programs in all of California; they serve 20,000 children in 30 different countries. Uplift Family Services, founded in 1867, evolved from an orphanage and Chinese rescue mission to California's largest, most comprehensive provider of behavioral health services for children and families. In fact, in 1994, Uplift Family Services became the first agency in California to launch an innovative program called Wraparound. That program, which delivers mental health and trauma related services to children and families, is now mandated in every county in the State of California. Uplift Family Services and its directors have played a vital role in generating community awareness, and facilitating engagement for the communities they serve. In so doing, they assist individuals realize their hopes for behavioral health and emotional well-being. Uplift Family Services' three-part Crisis Continuum of Services serve an average of 200 youth per month and successfully divert 70 percent of the youth from hospitalization. In addition, Uplift Family Services provide Foster Care and Adoption Services to 26 counties in California. Uplift Family Services was awarded the 2016 Agency Community Hero Award by the Santa Clara County Behavioral Health Board. Since its inception, Uplift Family Services has helped children and adolescents with complex behavioral challenges recover from trauma, cope with mental health disabilities, and lead happier and fuller lives. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Uplift Family Services, for its 150 years of service and advocacy to children and families in Santa Clara County.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that should be opposed, and I agree with Mr. Polis that it is unfortunate it is being rushed because this may be one of the more significant votes we will take about our economy in this Congress. I have heard a lot of rhetoric that this isn't about the Librarian. I am sorry, it is about the Librarian. Dr. Carla Hayden is probably the most qualified Librarian of Congress who has ever served. She has done more in the last 6 months to advance modernization in the Library and the Copyright Office than her predecessor did in the prior 2 decades. If we prevent her from appointing a new Register, that effort will be stalled, and I think that would be tragic. It has been mentioned that somehow, by making this a political position, it would be more accountable. I beg to differ. Mr. Polis has mentioned the view of the Electronic Frontier Foundation that this would enhance special interests. What they have actually said, and I think it is very pertinent, is that the bill would allow powerful incumbent interests to use their lobbying power to control this increasingly politicized Office. No President is going to select an appointee who will be shot down by the special interests. That is quite different than the Librarian who removed the prior Register because of, I believe, the inspector general's scathing report about the failure to computerize that office, essentially wasting $12 million, while misrepresenting that fact to the Librarian and to Congress. The national library groups, including the national Copyright Alliance, the American Library Association, and the like, say this: It's difficult to understand how the public or Congress itself would benefit from politicization of the Register of Copyrights' position by making it subject to Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation as this legislation proposes. Such politicization of the position necessarily would result in a Register more actively engaged in policy development than in competent management and modernization. That is what we want out of a Register. We don't want a partisan for one side of the issue. We want somebody who can run, in an efficient way, the Copyright Office. Now, a word about the amendment that has been bandied about as somehow giving Congress a greater say. I value the friendship of my colleague, Sheila Jackson Lee, who I have served with for so long, but I fear her amendment does not accomplish what she said because the President's power to appoint is limited only by Senate confirmation.

Ms. LOFGREN. It is limited only by Senate confirmation. It cannot be limited by a list prepared by Congress. I would just say, finally, that if there is a conflict of interest, as has been suggested, the Librarian cares only about the public interests. It is Donald Trump who has the 30 copyrights, and I don't think we should ask President Trump to take this position with that conflict of interest, something that all of us have been concerned about.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the life of William ``Bill'' Smethers, who passed away on March 31, 2017. Bill was a wonderful friend and beloved member of our community whose passing is deeply felt. Having known and worked with Bill, I know that he will be greatly missed. He touched many lives throughout his decades of service to our community. As a former Santa Clara County Fair Manager, Bill fought to protect the County Fair from being eliminated and continued to advocate for improving the Fair well after leaving his post as manager. His steadfast dedication became an inspiration for others to follow, encouraging them to preserve and continue these Fairs, festivals, and other cultural institutions not only in Santa Clara County but across California. Most importantly, Bill founded Youth Focus Inc. almost 50 years ago to empower and motivate youth, providing learning opportunities for youth to excel and become future leaders in our community. Through various cultural and educational enrichment programs, Bill and his team at Youth Focus Inc. made a tremendous impact on countless young people by helping them develop skills they needed to become productive and contributing members of our society. His work has left a lasting impression on those who participated in Youth Focus Inc. programs and will continue to be felt by future generations. Mr. Speaker, our San Jose community mourns the passing of Bill Smethers as we honor his life today. We thank him for his lasting contributions to our community and join his loved ones in celebrating his incredible life.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, and offer the resolution that was previously noticed.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. LOFGREN. I do, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, under clause 1 of rule IX, questions of the privileges of the House are: ``those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings.'' The dignity and integrity of the House's proceedings have been violated, and continue to be violated, because Congress has not had the constitutionally afforded opportunity to consent to emoluments being received by the President or to enforce, if consent is not given. I would note that Congress has the authority to request the President's taxes under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, and use of this authority would not be unprecedented, as it was used in 1974 to request President Nixon's tax returns that revealed that he owed nearly half a million dollars in back taxes. I would note that issues of the Constitution and the House's prerogatives under the Constitution have a precedent in using rule IX as a privileged resolution. For example, if a revenue measure is initiated in the Senate instead of in the House as required by the Constitution, that is a matter of a privilege of the House. I would argue that the Emoluments Clause is at least as important, possibly more important, than the origination of a revenue measure in either the House or Senate. I have been a member of the Judiciary Committee for 22 years. I am well aware of how the Judiciary Committee operates and the need for individual Members to do research before any official action is taken in that committee. And since it is the Judiciary Committee, it has the first responsibility for adhering to the Constitution among the committees of the House. I think it is absolutely essential for the President's tax returns to be released so that the members of the Judiciary Committee can do their job to research whether the Emoluments Clause has been violated and whether permission should be given to the President to receive payments from foreign states. I would note that there is no question that the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution was placed there to prevent corruption in the system. It was based on a sad experience during the Articles of Confederation. It is necessary to make sure that the President and all other officers of the United States have loyalty to only one thing, and that is to the United States of America, not to any foreign power. In order to do that, we need to review the data. As I say, the dignity and integrity of the House requires that the Constitution be upheld, and in order to uphold the Constitution, we must have this information. For these reasons, the resolution raises a question of the privileges of the House and should be permitted, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I appeal that ruling.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, a ``yes'' vote exempts all broadband service providers from all rules on user privacy and all limitations on how they use your data. They are in a unique position to see every place you go, every website you visit, they can do deep packet inspection and see what is in your emails. What protects your privacy? This rule that is about to be repealed. If you have problems with the privacy policies of your email provider or social network, you have got competition to go to. But most Americans have just one or, at most, just two choices for their broadband provider. And, interestingly enough, all of those providers are supporting the repeal of this privacy rule. Why? They are going to make money selling your information. The idea that we could have an FTC solution is an interesting one, but there is no way to do it. In the Ninth Circuit's 2016 ruling of AT&T v. FTC, they ruled that the FTC is barred from imposing data breach rules. So vote ``no'' and protect your constituents' privacy.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the President shall immediately disclose his tax return information to Congress and the American people. Whereas, the Emoluments Clause was included in the U.S. Constitution for the express purpose of preventing federal officials from accepting any ``present, Emolument, Office, or Title . . . from any King, Prince, or foreign State''; Whereas, in Federalist No. 22 (Alexander Hamilton) it is said, ``One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption,'' and; Whereas, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention specifically designed the Emoluments Clause as an antidote to potentially corrupting foreign practices of a kind that the Framers had observed during the period of the Confederation, and; Whereas, Article 1, section 9, clause 8 of the Constitution states: ``no person holding any office of profit or trust . . . shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State'', and; Whereas, in 2009, the Office of Legal Counsel clarified that corporations owned or controlled by foreign governments presumptively qualify as foreign States under the foreign Emoluments Clause, and; Whereas, the word ``emoluments'' means profit, salary, fees, or compensation which would include direct payment, as well as other benefits, including extension of credit, forgiveness of debt, or the granting of rights of pecuniary value, and; Whereas, according to The New Yorker, in 2012, The Trump Organization entered into a deal with Ziya Mammadov to build the Trump Tower Baku in the notoriously corrupt country Azerbaijan in possible violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and, by profiting from business with the Mammadov family, due to their financial entanglements with the Iran Revolutionary Guard may have also violated the Emoluments Clause if income from this project continues to flow to The Trump Organization, and; Whereas, The Trump Organization has deals in Turkey, admitted by the President himself during a 2015 Brietbart interview, and when the President announced his travel ban, Turkey's President called for President Trump's name to be removed from Trump Towers Istanbul, according to The Wall Street Journal, and President Trump's company is currently involved in major licensing deals for that property which may implicate the Emoluments Clause, and; Whereas, shortly after election, the President met with the former U.K. Independence Party leader, Nigel Farage, to get help to stop obstructions of the view from one of his golf resorts in Scotland, and according to The New York Times, both of the resorts he owns there are promoted by Scotland's official tourism agency, a benefit that may violate the Emoluments Clause, and; Whereas, at Trump Tower in New York, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China is a large tenant, according to Bloomberg; the United Arab Emirates leases space, according to the Abu Dhabi Tourism & Culture Authority; and the Saudi Mission to the U.N. makes annual payments, according to the New York Daily News, and money from these foreign countries goes to the President, and; Whereas, according to NPR, in February China gave provisional approval for 38 new trademarks for The Trump Organization, which have been sought for a decade to no avail, until President Trump won the election. This is a benefit the Chinese Government gave to the President's businesses in possible violation of the Emoluments Clause, and; Whereas, the President is part owner of a New York building carrying a $950 million loan, partially held by the Bank of China, according to The New York Times, when owing the Government of China by the extension of loans and credits by a foreign State to an officer of the United States would violate the Emoluments Clause, and; Whereas, NPR reported that the Embassy of Kuwait held its 600 guest National Day celebration at Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C., last month, proceeds to Trump, and; Whereas, according to The Washington Post, the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., has hired a ``director of diplomatic sales'' to generate high-priced business among foreign leaders and diplomatic delegations, and; Whereas, according to his 2016 candidate filing with the Federal Election Commission, the President has 564 financial positions in companies located in the United States and around the world, and; Whereas, against the advice of ethics attorneys and the Office of Government Ethics, the President has refused to divest his ownership stake in his businesses, and; Whereas, the Director of the nonpartisan Office of Government Ethics said that the President's plan to transfer his business holdings to a trust managed by family members is ``meaningless'' and ``does not meet the standards that . . . every President in the past four decades has met'', and; Whereas, in the United States' system of checks and balances, Congress has a responsibility to hold the executive branch of government to the highest standard of transparency to ensure the public interest is placed first and the Constitution is adhered to, and; Whereas, the House Judiciary Committee has the first responsibility among the committees of the House to see that elements of our Constitution are adhered to and, in furtherance of that responsibility, Judiciary Committee members have historically utilized fact-finding and research prior to formal hearings, and; Whereas, tax returns provide an important baseline disclosure because they contain highly instructive information including whether the filer paid taxes, what they own, what they have borrowed and from whom, whether they have made any charitable donations, and whether they have taken advantage of tax loopholes and that such information would be material to members of the Judiciary Committee as research is undertaken on whether President Trump is in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, and; Whereas, disclosure of the President's tax returns would be an effective means for the President to provide evidence either refuting or confirming claims of violations of the Emoluments Clause, and; Whereas, the President's tax returns are likely to be essential as members of the Judiciary Committee work to research potential violations of the Emoluments Clause, and; Whereas, the chairmen of the Ways and Means Committee, Joint Committee on Taxation, and Senate Finance Committee have the authority to request the President's tax returns under section 6103 of the Tax Code, and this power is an essential tool in learning whether the President may be in violation of the Emoluments Clause, and; Whereas, questions involving constitutional functions and the House's constitutionally granted powers have been recognized as valid questions of the privileges of the House. Resolved, that the House of Representatives shall: One, immediately request the tax return information of Donald J. Trump for tax years 2000 through 2015 for review by Congress, as part of a determination as to whether the President is in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this terrible bill that will hurt my constituents in California. Mr. Speaker, each one of us was elected by our constituents to stand up for them here in Washington. Today, I will stand up for people who live in the 19th Congressional District by voting no on this terrible bill. It's small wonder that polling shows only 19 percent of Americans are in favor of this bill. With the bill, 24 million fewer Americans will have health care insurance. Families will pay increased out of pocket costs with higher deductibles. Incredibly, it allows insurance companies to penalize people older than 50 by allowing them to charge 5 times more for insurance than younger Americans. It hurts Seniors in other ways too. . . . by shortening the life of the medicare trust funds, by increasing costs for medicine for medicare recipients and by smashing the safety net for nursing home care which the Medicaid program provides. Incredibly, it also has a special penalty for veterans, by barring veterans from receiving tax credits if they are nominally eligible for VA care, even if there is no room for them at the VA. Let's stand together for our hardworking Americans all over our country and in our own districts by voting no on this poorly crafted bill that cuts taxes for the richest Americans and leaves regular Americans on the short end of the stick when it comes to health care.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor my friend, Don Polden, who has received Santa Clara University School of Law's 2017 Edwin J. Owens Award. In his nearly forty years in legal education, Don has trained a generation of young lawyers in the classroom and as Dean of the University of Memphis Law School and later as Dean at Santa Clara University School of Law. At Santa Clara, Don developed curriculum for leadership education and fostered the growth of clinical programs. He secured the gift to launch the Katherine & George Alexander Community Law Center, which offers free legal services for consumer, labor, and immigration issues. During his tenure, Santa Clara Law became nationally recognized for its Intellectual Property law curriculum. Don's twenty years as law school Dean ended in 2013, but he continues his work on leadership education at the Center for Creative Leadership. Returning to the classroom has offered Don the opportunity to explore his areas of expertise, antitrust and federal and state labor law. He continues to serve in the American Law Institute's College of Labor and Employment Lawyers in addition to serving as chair of the Advisory Board of the Institute of Sports Law and Ethics. Don has written extensively on the topic of labor law, from authoring a law school textbook to providing commentary in the Huffington Post about how the emerging sharing economy tests conventional labor classifications. Not your ordinary legal educator, Don can also be described as a legal thespian for his role in the 1997 film Legal Commentator. Please join me in recognizing Don for his decades of service to his students and for receiving the 2017 Edwin J. Owens Award.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. LOFGREN. I am opposed in its current form.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. As has been amply discussed, the mandatory sanctions and fees in this bill would have a chilling effect on cutting-edge litigation. One type of cutting-edge litigation to suffer would be citizen lawsuits seeking enforcement of the foreign Emoluments Clause. The amendment proposed in this motion would exempt civil actions that implicate foreign emoluments. Article I, section 9, clause 8 of the Constitution says: ``No person holding any office of profit or trust . . . shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.'' Why did the Founding Fathers write this? Concern that foreign governments might try to control America. They wanted to make sure that nothing--no gifts, no payments, no advantages of any kind--could be received by officers of the United States, including the President, unless Congress approved it. They wanted to make sure that loyalty was completely to America, not divided by obligations to foreign powers. So receipt of emoluments is a serious breach of the requirements of the Constitution unless Congress approves the payment. Congress has not voted to approve payments by foreign governments to our President. Some Americans are considering legal action to protect America from a Presidential violation of the Emoluments Clause. President Trump took the symbolic step of resigning from his businesses, but he still gets the income. Letting his family run his businesses doesn't solve the emoluments violations. Here are some of the potential problems: In February, China gave provisional approval for 31 new trademarks for The Trump Organization, which have been sought for a decade, to no avail, until he won the election. This is a benefit the Chinese Government gave to the President's business. At Trump Tower in New York, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China's large tenant, the United Arab Emirates, leases space, and the Saudi mission to the U.N. makes payments. Money from these foreign countries goes to the President. The President is part owner of a New York building carrying a $950 million loan, partially held by the Bank of China. He literally owes the government of China. The Embassy of Kuwait held its 600-guest National Day celebration at Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C., last month, proceeds to Trump. The President has deals in Turkey. When he announced the Muslim ban, Turkey's President called for President Trump's name to be removed from Trump Towers Istanbul. His company is currently involved in major licensing deals for that property. Shortly after the election, the President met with former U.K. Independent Party leader Nigel Farage, to get help to get the view from his golf resorts in Scotland resolved. Both golf resorts he owns there are promoted by Scotland's official tourism agency. Foreign government-owned broadcasts in several countries air the President's television program ``The Apprentice,'' resulting in royalties and other payments from these governments. There may be many more business violations to the Emoluments Clause that are unknown due to the President's refusal to disclose his tax returns. Congress could move to approve these questionable payments and benefits under Article 1, section 9 to solve the constitutional violation, although, in my view, that would not resolve concerns about divided loyalties. But Congress has done nothing--neither enforce the clause nor authorize the payments. That is why patriotic citizens are returning to the third branch of government to defend the Constitution and the country. America has never faced this situation before, and any litigation will, of course, be breaking new ground and, therefore, be more susceptible to the mandatory rule 11 fees required by the bill. Citizens who seek a President free from foreign influence by bringing actions in court should not be penalized with the mandatory fees required by this bill. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast votes on Monday February 27, 2017 due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present I would have voted: Roll Call No. 100: YEA, Roll Call No. 101: NO, and Roll Call No. 102: YEA.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote against this previous question so that the bill to overturn President Trump's ill- advised ban on travel can be addressed. There has been a lot of dustup and discussion about this, but, really, if you read the order, it is very clear what it does. It suspends entry for 90 days of all immigrants--that is green card holders--and nonimmigrants from seven Muslim majority countries. It also suspends all refugee admission for 120 days. Now, there has been discussion about the Middle East refugees, but if you look at last year, most of the refugees who came in were from the Congo and also from Burma. Those individuals who have suffered--they have been tortured--are going to stay in the refugee camps at least for 120 days, and, obviously, this disrupts the program. This will be a much longer end to the refugee program. Now, there is an exception, and the President has said he wants to let Christian refugees in, and the order itself says minority religions. There is a problem not only with violating the law because the Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits discrimination based on nationality and on religion, but also the premise is that Christians who had been persecuted were not admitted as refugees. That is simply false. That is false. There were large numbers of refugees who have been persecuted, including Christians. This order violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. It also violates the Constitution. That is why my bill should be brought up. I am going to give you just two examples. One is General Talib al- Kenani, who is an Iraqi four-star general who is commanding an elite, American-trained counterterrorism unit that has led the fight against ISIS for the last 2 years. His wife and children were moved to the United States because staying in Iraq was too unsafe for them. He is now unable to visit his family in the United States. He told CBS News: ``We thought we were partners with our American friends, and now we realize we are just considered terrorists.'' How does this help the fight against ISIS? I want to give you another example. Remember the Yazidis? The Yazidis were being persecuted by ISIS. We remember that they had been isolated at the top of a mountain in Syria; and when President Obama was in office, he acted. We bombed ISIS and we saved the Yazidis. This is what President Obama said: ``When we have the unique capabilities to avert a massacre, then I believe the United States of America cannot turn a blind eye. We can act, carefully and responsibly, to prevent a potential act of genocide. That's what we're doing on that mountain.'' I mention this because there is an individual, a Yazidi woman, who had been the only Yazidi person--woman--in the Iraqi parliament, Vian Dakhil. One week after the President's announcement, she was injured in a helicopter crash during a mission to deliver humanitarian aid to the Yazidis who were trapped in the siege by ISIS. She has received awards in London, in Dubai, in Vienna, and in Geneva for her human rights work. Ironically, she was supposed to come to Washington, D.C., next week to come to the U.S. Capitol to receive an award from the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. Now, we remember our late colleague, Tom Lantos, the only Member of Congress who survived the Nazi concentration camps, and we have established this humanitarian prize in his memory. This valiant woman now can't come to Washington, to the U.S. Congress, to receive the Tom Lantos Human Rights Prize because of President Trump's ban on individuals coming from Syria. This is a ridiculous situation. It is illegal, it is unconstitutional, it is contrary to American values, and it doesn't make any sense. So I would hope that we can defeat this previous question and that we can do something responsible: stand up for the rule of law, stand up for the Constitution, stand up for common sense, and overturn this executive order.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the President's executive order of Friday violates the law, it violates the Constitution, and it violates good sense. How does it violate the law? Section 202(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act specifically prohibits nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas and other visas. That is what this order did. Now, the law is clear that individuals who pose a threat to the United States can--and I should add, should be--barred from the United States; but you can't just legally make a blanket objection based on nationality and, I would add, based on religion. That is what the President's order does. It suspends refugee admission completely for months. Who are these refugees? Most of the refugees admitted last year were from Burma and the Congo, not from Syria. They are people who have been vetted for years, many of whom are fleeing for their lives and will continue to live in fear. It does something else. It suspends admission even of legal permanent residents from seven countries, violating their rights to equal protection and to due process. People want to keep the country safe--we all do; of course, I do--but how does this order keep us safe? Let me just give an example. General Talib al-Kenani from Iraq commands the elite American-trained counterterrorism forces that have been leading the fight against ISIS for 2 years. His family relocated to the U.S. for safety. He can't visit them anymore. He said this: I have been fighting terrorism for 13 years and winning. Now my kids are asking: Am I a terrorist? I am a four-star general, and I am banned from entering the United States. I ask you: How does this advance our safety by barring our allies who are fighting ISIS? It doesn't. I have got to correct something else. People have said that President Obama had an order in 2011 barring immigrants from Iraq. That is false. We did additional vetting in 2011 because we wanted to make sure that anyone coming in was thoroughly examined. That slowed things down a little bit because there were new procedures, but there was never a halt to admission from those who are our allies in Iraq, those fighting ISIS with us. I would just like to say that, in addition to violating the law, causing hardship for families trying to visit people in the hospital, permanent residents who are engineers trying to come back to run their companies in Silicon Valley, this order is a gift to ISIS. They are already using it to recruit enemies of our country by saying: America is fighting Islam. As George Bush said when he was President, our argument, our fight is not with Islam. Our fight is with terrorism. To issue this order with the President's rhetoric saying that we are going to make a distinction on who is admitted to the United States based on their religion is not only illegal, it is contrary to American values and it is contrary to our safety. So I hope that, instead of doing this antienvironment bill today, we will instead take up H.R. 724. This is a bill that would defund and rescind President Trump's ill-advised order from Friday. Let me just say this. I would like to issue a formal invitation to every Republican Member of this House to join me as a cosponsor of this bill. I will be sending out a formal note to each one later today, but you are on notice to please join us. We as American legislators need to make sure that the rule of law is upheld. Many of our constituents are very uncertain about whether the rule of law is going to survive this Presidency. Help give them faith and hope by cosponsoring this bill.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I would plead for unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 724 to overturn President Trump's refugee ban so that individuals like Hameed Khalid Darweesh, who helped the U.S. military in Iraq and who has a special immigrant visa, won't be detained at JFK Airport for 19 hours.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I was detained at a classified briefing with the Secretary of Homeland Security causing me to miss these two votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 68 and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 69.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up and consider H.R. 724, the Statue of Liberty Values Act of 2017.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, 44 years ago, the Supreme Court made an important decision. It said that women have a constitutional right to make decisions about their own health care and their own bodies, not the government. It was just a few days ago that millions of American women marched all across the United States, reaffirming their opposition to efforts to take away their rights. That is what this bill would do. There has been a lot of discussion about taxpayers funding abortion. That is not currently the law, not only in the Hyde amendment, but the Affordable Care Act requires women who wish to have this coverage to pay for it themselves. We have heard a lot about alternative facts recently, but the fact is there is no taxpayer money for abortion in the United States--there hasn't ever been for many years--and that was also the accommodation that the Supreme Court made. Let's make sure that the constitutional rights of women to control their own bodies is not attacked.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, a mere 62 years ago young Victor Corsiglia Jr. proudly graduated from Stanford Medical School and, in 1956, began a lifetime of practicing medicine. This month, his long practice is ending in retirement. Vic and his wife, Joan, a registered nurse, first served their country when Vic served as a doctor for the Marines at Camp Pendleton right after graduation. In 1961, they made their way back home to San Jose. Vic and Joan have never been the kind of people who expect others to do the work. They made immense contributions to our local arts world. Vic volunteered for the San Jose Arts Commission, served as a board member for the San Jose Symphony and, along with Ken Wiener and Barbara Day Turner, founded the San Jose Chamber Orchestra. While serving on the San Jose Arts Commission, Vic brought together Jim Reber and Clay Feldman, who founded the San Jose Repertory Theatre. Joan was also active with the San Jose Symphony and was instrumental in restoring its auxiliary. It is not an exaggeration to say that absent the many contributions of Joan and Vic Corsiglia, the artistic life of our community would have been much poorer. Joan and Vic also took a great interest in the overall health of the community. Vic served on the Santa Clara County Mental Health Board for many years. Joan, as a neighborhood activist, but also as a nurse who understood the need for effective care, worked for decent care for the mentally ill in group homes. Joan Corsiglia, with Vic by her side, helped found the Campus Community Association (CCA), one of the first active neighborhood associations in the city of San Jose. CCA grew to become an effective grassroots organization in the Naglee Park neighborhood, protecting the quality of life in this downtown neighborhood. The CCA founded the Naglee Park Fourth of July Parade. Before the parade begins, there is a traditional Coyote Creek Run, first initiated by Vic and Mike McDonald. Joan's civic engagement also included chairing the SJSU Campus- Community Task Force in the 1970s, and working on various local political campaigns, including the election of San Jose's first female mayor, Janet Gray Hayes. Joan served as an aide for Mayor Hayes and later for Mayor Susan Hammer. Vic and Joan also made an invaluable contribution to local parks when, along with David Pandori and Kathy Muller, Joan helped create the Guadalupe River Park Gardens. Vic and Joan raised four children in the Naglee Park neighborhood, and all four grew up to follow their parents into careers in the medical professions. What a mark Vic Corsiglia has made as a member of the medical profession. As a leader of the San Jose Medical Group, he ensured that institutions dedicated to patient well-being would exist and flourish even after his retirement. As a practicing physician, Vic has been a model of what a doctor should be. Modern insurance schemes don't always compensate the internal medicine physician when a patient is hospitalized. But that never stopped Vic from always attending to any patient who was hospitalized. Vic was always on duty to his patients and cared about them as human beings. Vic Corsiglia has been a doctor who is really obsessive about keeping up with the latest in medicine and he's also a physician who takes the time to thoroughly explore every patient's symptoms, to understand just what is going on with a patient. That may be why Vic Corsiglia is known to have an almost uncanny ability to diagnose ailments, even obscure ones, among his patients. If you don't know what's wrong with you, but you know something is wrong, Vic is the man to see. In the 56 years he has practiced medicine at the San Jose Medical Clinic, he has saved countless lives and has engendered the gratitude and trust of thousands of patients. One of them is me. I am grateful that in December of 1980 Vic saved my life just as I am grateful that he has helped heal me and my family so many times over the years. To say we will miss him as a physician does not really capture the sense of loss all of his patients feel. However, I count myself among the lucky because although Vic Corsiglia is retiring from the practice of medicine, he is not retiring from being my neighbor and my friend. I know that Vic and Joan Corsiglia will have many new ventures and adventures before them and I hope to share some of them. Please join me in recognizing Vic and Joan for their decades of service to our community.