Jackie Speier

Ms. SPEIER

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, due to a conflict, I unavoidably missed the following votes on September 26 and 27. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On rollcall No. 557, I would have voted ``nay'' (September 26) (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass as Amendment H.R. 3537, the Dangerous Synthetic Drug Control Act.) On rollcall No. 558, I would have voted ``yea'' (September 26) (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 5392, the No Veterans Crisis Line Call Should Go Unanswered Act.) On rollcall No. 559, I would have voted ``nay'' (September 27) (H. Res. 893, On Ordering the Previous Question Providing for consideration of H.R. 954, the CO-OP Consumer Protection Act of 2016.) On rollcall No. 560, I would have voted ``nay'' (September 27) (H. Res. 893, On Agreeing to the Resolution Providing for consideration of H.R. 954, the CO-OP Consumer Protection Act of 2016.) On rollcall No. 561, I would have voted ``nay'' (September 27) (H. Res. 892, On Ordering the Previous Question for H.R. 5303, the Water Resources Development Act of 2016.) On rollcall No. 562, I would have voted ``nay'' (September 27) (H. Res. 892, On Agreeing to the Resolution for Providing consideration of H.R. 5303, the Water Resources Development Act of 2016.)

Ms. SPEIER

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, this is a sage-grouse. I found out that the sage-grouse have poor eyesight, so they often collide with barbed wire fences and other obstructions that are difficult to see. And these collisions are often fatal. But the sage-grouse looks like a keen-eyed hawk compared to Congress. That is because the sage-grouse recently collided with the National Defense Authorization Act, and the nearsighted bird won. Hopefully this time it won't be fatal. We were supposed to vote to send the NDAA to the President this week, but a disagreement between the House and the Senate Republicans about the sage-grouse got egg all over the deal. That is right, a bill that authorizes over $600 billion in spending on wartime operations, weapons acquisition, servicemember benefits, and many other provisions critical to the defense of our country was taken down by a bird. But unlike the plane that landed in the Hudson River, Congress doesn't seem to have a Captain Sully to rescue it from bird-induced mayhem. Don't get me wrong. The NDAA has many problems. It redirects billions in critical funding towards a program the Defense Department does not want. It sidesteps the Bipartisan Budget Act compromise by requiring supplemental funding just to keep the Pentagon running. It contains a myriad of poison pill riders, from allowing contractors to engage in discrimination against the LGBTQ employees, to releasing tens of thousands of handguns into our communities with no background checks. All of these reasons are why I voted against the bill in committee and on the House floor. Nonetheless, the conference report is a compromise between the Senate and the House on complex issues ranging from funding operations against ISIS to military healthcare reform, a compromise on everything but this pesky bird. House Republicans stubbornly refuse to remove language that would prohibit the sage-grouse from being placed on the Endangered Species List, despite the fact that no one is trying to list it. Placing an animal on the Endangered Species List is a scientific decision not within the purview of Congress, and the administration has promised not to list the bird anyway, thanks to a compromise conservation plan. So the provision that is holding up the entire bill not only blatantly prioritizes politics over national security policy, it is legally meaningless. I think Speaker Ryan put it best earlier this month when he said that playing politics over the NDAA is ``shameless, and it threatens more than five decades of bipartisan cooperation to enact a national defense bill for our troops. The men and women who defend our country deserve better.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, then your party is chicken for prioritizing talking points over national security. The sage-grouse is such an important issue to House Republicans that it makes you wonder what they will do next to contain the serious national security threat. Perhaps we will soon hear calls to build a wall on the Canadian border to prevent sage-grouse from sending their chicks across the border, even though some, I assume, are good hatchlings. We may then hear about a plan to prevent sage-grouse from entering the country altogether until we find out what is going on. Maybe the Republicans will ban sage-grouse mating dances as breeding grounds for--well, if not terrorism, then, at least more sage-grouse. But, seriously, colleagues, is this really what our constituents are most concerned about? It is time to focus on passing a bill that provides accountability on defense spending to taxpayers and is in line with the Bipartisan Budget Act. Our inability to overcome this pointless provision is just further evidence that this Congress is for or, in this case, against the birds.

Ms. SPEIER

Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for giving me the opportunity to speak about this bill. Mr. Speaker, every once in a while, we get complaints, questions from constituents, and we actually can try and fix them. This is one of those situations. For the longest time, I was getting complaints from residents in my district who had not received their immigration documentation. For the most part, I was not able to tell them that we could do anything, because we would call the Postal Service, and they would say there was really nothing we could do for them. I realized this was a serious problem. There are some 50,000 green cards every year that go temporarily displaced or permanently displaced due to loss in delivery. That is about 5 percent of all green cards. With 50,000 green cards over 435 districts, you can see that we are talking about 10, 15, 20 complaints that we get every year. In my case, frankly, we stopped even logging them in because there was nothing that we could do about them. This idea came to be, and I thought why not try it. I am really very grateful that we are taking it up today. My most recent constituent with this problem is from San Francisco. He has gone through the lawful process of getting his green card, only to have it lost. It has been over a year that he has been waiting for this document now. That means he can't travel, that he can't change jobs, that he can't get financial aid for college, that he can't open a retirement account, that he can't buy a house or anything else that most of us take for granted. This case shows that, when these documents are not properly delivered, the only solution is to reapply and pay another $425. It is a small fix, but it carries a big wallop. That is why I am so grateful that we are taking it up. The other issue is one of identity theft. You can also see how it could be used in a way that could create a national security risk. A stolen card could be used to travel or to purchase a firearm. We could easily fix this problem, as my colleagues have noted, by giving the applicant the option of paying an additional $3 to require a signature at the time it is delivered. I thank the committee, and especially my colleague Representative Woodall from Georgia, for joining me in this effort. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. SPEIER

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from our beautiful State of Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard) for giving us the opportunity to reflect on an extraordinary man. To the family, let me say, as I was sitting here and contemplating the pain and anguish and loss that you feel, I also was reflecting on the fact that many people leave this Chamber after they have served their time. They may be remembered by a moment of silence, maybe not. As painful as it is to have lost Mark and in the way that you have lost him, I hope there is some solace, some balm that will soothe you in knowing how extraordinary it is to have a person like Mark, who has served in this House, be so loved to the point that we would have a special ceremony in Statuary Hall and we would spend an hour reflecting on his life. It is a great reflection on his family. It is a great reflection on our country that we have so recognized such an outstanding leader. When I think of Mark, I think of a number of words to describe him. I think of grace. I think of stoic courage. I think of integrity. Now, many people have spoken about the grace with which he handled this horrific disease and the stoic courage he showed. I am going to spend a few minutes just talking about integrity. I have been working on an issue for some time here in Congress on the incidence of military sexual trauma and the fact that there is so much of it that goes on that goes unaddressed. Each year, I have brought an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to try and take these cases out of the chain of command. I have not succeeded. I took it up last March and was certainly counting the votes, but I wasn't counting Mark as one of those votes because my experience had been that those who have served in leadership in the military would side with the military and not be willing to take these cases out of the chain of command. You can imagine how shocked and in awe I was of him when not only did he vote for the amendment--which was a huge message to the entire membership of the committee that someone actively in the military would recognize the importance of this reform--he spoke up in favor of it. That is a man of extraordinary integrity. I will forever be grateful to him for cracking open the myth that members of the military don't recognize the importance of dealing with that issue. Mark Takai, you live on for all of us. You are a great example for all of us as to how to lead as a Member of Congress with great dignity, with great integrity, and with great grace.

Ms. SPEIER

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Dr. Jim O'Donnell who has been a pediatrician with Kaiser Permanente for 35 years. For the last 16 years he served in a vital leadership role as Physician-in-Chief at the Redwood City Medical Center. Jim is everything a patient can hope for in a physician. He is brilliant, warm, funny, and up to date on the latest research and technology. In addition to his pediatric caseload, Dr. O'Donnell cared for my parents and I could not have imagined a more skilled physician to offer care to them. Dr. O'Donnell is a visionary. He led the negotiations and planning for the new Redwood City hospital that opened in December 2014. At the ribbon cutting, Kaiser CEO Bernard Tyson noted that he was initially skeptical of the proposal for a new hospital. Now I ask everyone to imagine a poker game between Jim O'Donnell and Bernard Tyson. Let me assure you that it was never an even match. Jim bluffed many times, and eventually Bernard Tyson was forced to fold. South County Kaiser patients won the pot, and it was quite lucrative--perhaps a bit costly for Mr. Tyson--but the hospital is truly amazing. In addition to its ultra-modern equipment, the hospital offers green architecture and a soothing environment filled with warm colors and beautiful artwork. The hospital is also a designated stroke center. The American Heart Association and American Stroke Association have awarded it the ``Get With The Guidelines Stroke Gold Plus Quality Achievement Award'' for providing patients with the best possible care. U.S. News & World Report named it a high performing hospital for neuroscience. Planning a new hospital and seeing patients wasn't enough, and thus Jim was also instrumental in opening the San Mateo Medical Offices in 2011. He is always looking for new and creative ways to improve care for patients. Jim O'Donnell is Kaiser's Johnny Appleseed of clinic and hospital construction. I suspect that his name is well known by Kaiser's capital allocation committee, and most likely because Jim is as prudent with Kaiser's construction dollars as he is with the health of his patients. Dr. O'Donnell grew up in a small farming community in Iowa. His interest in public service and his honing of great people skills began early when he worked in his father's general store. He developed a deep fascination with science. Combining those three ingredients naturally led him to medicine. He received his medical degree from the University of Iowa, College of Medicine in Iowa City. He completed his medical internship and residency at the University of Michigan Hospitals in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He is also a 1998 graduate of the Kenan Flagler School of Business Advanced Leadership Program at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. The reason he chose pediatrics is obvious. He loves children. His awe watching young children grow up and his passion to help them develop into productive and healthy adolescents are palpable. After he finished his residency in 1980, Jim moved to the Bay Area. He chose Kaiser Permanente because he liked its preventative focus and its integrated model of care. We are immensely fortunate that Jim settled here and made Redwood City his home with his husband, Michael, and he says his most joyful experience in life is time with his two daughters, Emma and Audie. For 15 years, Jim O'Donnell has served on Redwood City 2020, a partnership among the City of Redwood City, the elementary and high school districts, San Mateo County, Stanford University, the Sequoia Healthcare District and Kaiser Permanente designed to support the success of all youth and families and to engage and strengthen the community. Jim's strategic thinking, problem-solving ability and passion have benefited everyone in that partnership and our community at large. In his well-deserved retirement, Jim will enjoy more time with his family and finally have more time to read, hike, cook and take advantage of our great Bay Area restaurants. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to rise with me to honor Dr. Jim O'Donnell, a top-notch doctor, devoted family man, and extraordinary human being who I am very fortunate to call my good friend. While he is leaving Kaiser Permanente, he leaves behind a first-class hospital with a world-class medical team. His vision for a healthy Redwood City has come alive under his stewardship. His child-- the hospital--and the staff that animate the child will now say farewell to their father, but the lessons learned from Jim's instruction will save lives for decades yet to come.

Ms. SPEIER

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the retirement of an outstanding woman leader in San Mateo County, Ms. Shelley Kessler. She is leaving her position as Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the San Mateo County Central Labor Council, a position that she has held--and honored through her exemplary leadership--for twenty years. I am honored to call Shelley a trusted friend. She is a remarkable leader in public policy. She is a person who is willing to listen and to compromise, but she is also capable of holding the line when she seeks justice for those whom she services. No one would ever accuse Shelley Kessler of being a shrinking violet. However, she also seeks progress on behalf of the working men and women of San Mateo County without seeking credit for herself. In short, she is a forceful, thoughtful advocate for fair wages, safe working conditions, and for long-term public policies that benefit all San Mateo County workers. Shelley has two bachelor's degrees from Sonoma State University and spent a year in law school. She was a trailblazer in the auto manufacturing workforce as she was hired by General Motors in 1977 during a time when the company was under a consent decree requiring it to hire more women. She worked as a spot welder on an assembly line and eventually was elected to a full-time position in the United Auto Workers. She later moved to Westinghouse Electric, working as a mechanic on turbines, generators and marine ordinance. While she was working at Westinghouse, she was also elected to leadership positions in Machinists Union Local 565. Fortune shined on San Mateo County when Shelley applied for a job at our local labor council. She led a strong and responsive team and built relationships with elected officials at all levels of government. Her intellect, thorough understanding of issues and willingness to negotiate are legendary. For example, San Francisco International Airport is one of the largest employers in San Mateo County. The 45,000 workers throughout this giant complex have Shelley and her partners at the labor council to thank for the outstanding working conditions that the airport director has informed me contribute to security throughout the facility. Instead of having an ever-rotating list of tens of thousands of persons with access to these critical facilities, people who enter the labor force at the airport--whether through the airport itself or various vendors--are assured a living wage and decent benefits. This directly contributes to a stable workforce that treasures the airport and honors its need for security. Shelley also led the way in establishing PALCARE for airport workers and the surrounding community, an innovative child care center that allows working families with unusual work hours to have a safe place for childcare. She is also a leading advocate for affordable housing and affordable health care. She donates her time to the American Heart Association and to KQED, our local public television and radio affiliate, and she has preserved and strengthened the UC Berkeley Labor Center. She has served as Vice President of the California Labor Federation, and was once selected as ``Woman Labor Leader of the Year'' by the federation. She has also been inducted into the San Mateo County Women's Hall of Fame. She gets her greatest joy from her husband Dennis, a retired firefighter who discovered that being with Shelley was a step up from the energy needed to extinguish a massive blaze. The man is as cool as Shelley is hot. Mr. Speaker, San Mateo County has had many leading citizens over the decades, including such historical figures as the founder of the Bank of America or the CEOs of giant social media sites. Thankfully, we also have had a thoughtful, honorable advocate for working women and men: Shelley Kessler. We are losing a leader but gaining an adventurous retiree. It's doubtful that the county will ever be the same.

Ms. SPEIER

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Daughters of Charity Health System as it turns over ownership of Seton Hospital in Daly City to Integrity Healthcare and Blue Mountain Capital Management. The Daughters leave Seton having contributed mightily to the health care of 1.5 million residents in San Francisco and San Mateo counties. Hundreds of thousands of patients have come through the doors of Seton since 1986, when the Daughters assumed responsibility for the hospital. Seton Hospital Daly City began its existence as Mary's Help Hospital in San Francisco in 1912. As of 2011, with 357 licensed beds, 1,500 staff, over 400 physicians, 4,800 surgical cases and 28,000 emergency visits annually, Seton Hospital was mission central for medical care in northern San Mateo County. During this time, the Daughters of Charity worked aggressively to meet their mission of providing care for the poor, as evidenced by the annual $30 million of community benefit that the hospital offered. Nearly $50 million of care was offered to the elderly. Mr. Speaker, the hospital is a Gold Certified Stroke Center and in 2013 received awards from the Hospital Council of Northern and Central California for reducing deaths from sepsis. Among its key services are cardiovascular, oncology, and orthopedics. Its coastal hospital, Seton Coastside, provides 116 skilled nursing facility beds for our elderly. Even as the recession took its toll on the finances of Seton and the Daughters, the institution persevered. Children were born, broken bones were set, cancer went into remission, blood clots were cleared so that hearts began to beat normally again, and hope was reborn each day at Seton Hospital in Daly City. The physicians and staff of this wonderful institution are beloved, and justifiably so. It is not easy to operate a modern American hospital. Our Medicare rates impose strict financial discipline and our Medicaid program offers reimbursements that are an insult to our nation's conscience. We hope that health insurance for more persons will improve access to health care and ultimately boost health outcomes. Mr. Speaker, after many decades of service in the north county and on the coast, the Daughters of Charity have decided to transition the administration to a different organization. In our community, the Daughters have acted with integrity and been resourceful despite the odds. Now, as the Daughters of Charity transition from ownership of Seton they will leave the community knowing that they served us exceptionally well. We thank the Daughters of Charity for seeing a purpose for their organization in serving San Francisco and San Mateo counties. Their hilltop temple to modern medicine will now be operated by someone else, but their dedication to our lives and to our families will be remembered and honored for years to come

Ms. SPEIER

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Mr. John Martin upon his retirement as the Airport Director of San Francisco International Airport. Mr. Martin is leaving his position after 21 years at the helm, and after 36 years working in various capacities for the airport commission. SFO is a rapidly expanding enterprise, directly or indirectly employing 45,000 people. John Martin is therefore in charge of a small city and one that links this nation with nations around the globe. His accomplishments reflect this global reach. John piloted the airport through a $2.4 billion expansion including the construction of a beautiful international terminal, the extension of the Bay Area's major rapid transit line--BART--into the terminal, and the creation of a self-guided tram line. He was instrumental in recruiting Virgin America to establish its headquarters in San Mateo County, bringing jobs at a time when the economy desperately needed an injection of investment. John Martin has also worked closely with my office to prove that a third-party contractor operating airport screening services can, if the contract is structured and supervised well, provide superior service to passengers. All airport directors have dreams but when their construction projects go awry, some have nightmares as well. In contrast, John successfully undertook the largest public works project of the era. Terminal 2 was rebuilt and now serves as the launching point for Virgin America and American Airlines. The FAA has a new and beautiful tower at SFO, designed by John's staff and built, as is true of all work at the airport, using highly skilled union labor that proves its value with every weld, hammer blow or polished surface. As he explained to me a few weeks ago during a security tour of the airport, fair wages and working conditions materially contribute to airport security. Instead of a revolving door of disgruntled employees, SFO is notable for trying to create a healthy atmosphere where people may earn their livings safely and with dignity. Indeed, there's an ordinance to assure a livable wage. SFO will soon undertake $4.3 billion in construction leading to a new four star hotel, the redevelopment of Terminal 1 and the boarding area of Terminal 3, and an extension of the AirTrain system. This 10 year capital improvement program will bring more than 36,000 construction jobs to San Mateo County. The airport's finances are in excellent shape, in part because of John's dedication to earning extra money from passengers shopping at the airport's various shops. It is rumored that his retail managers have their own version of a biblical admonition: ``It is easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for an airport visitor to pass by a See's candy store.'' John is a gifted public policy leader in the Bay Area, supporting California's high speed rail system to relieve pressure on his airport, advocating for mass transit throughout the Bay Area, and encouraging coordination between his airport and the other two major airports in our region. He was the founding president of the California Airports Council and served on the executive board of the Bay Area Council, a major public policy advocacy organization. I was once walking through a terminal with him and he paused momentarily to pick up a piece of trash and tossed it into the wastebasket. A few steps later he noticed that a door wasn't working and phoned airport staff to have it dealt with immediately. Farmers are often noted for the pride that they take in tilling their own fields. John is an excellent farmer and rightfully proud of the field called San Francisco International Airport. Mr. Speaker, we wish John Martin well in his next phase in life. Hopefully he will now have the time to travel and to reflect upon his public service. I feel privileged to have served with him and I submit, given all his outstanding contributions, that one of the terminals should be named after him. He deserves to be acknowledged and remembered for the accomplishments of his career that will endure beyond his own era at San Francisco International Airport.

Ms. SPEIER

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take up H.R. 1076, the bipartisan no fly, no buy legislation, to honor the memory of a constituent, Teqnika Moultrie, a school bus driver who at age 30 was gunned down outside a doughnut shop, and never received a moment of action on the House floor on her behalf.

Ms. SPEIER

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, you probably haven't heard of Tamia Sanders. This young woman here was 14 years old. She was killed while sitting on her porch next to her mother on August 12 in Jacksonville. You probably didn't hear that Tamia was an honor student or that she had a beautiful smile. There were no moments of silence for Tamia on the House floor because she was just another little Black girl killed by street violence. You probably haven't heard about Willow. She was 2 years old. She and her mother, her 8-year-old sister Liana, and 6-year-old brother Mark, Jr., were killed. Willow was just 2 years old when her father killed her along with the rest of the family on August 6 in Sinking Spring, Pennsylvania. And you probably haven't heard that Willow had survived a heart transplant when she was 6 days old and that her mother fought hard to make sure Willow had enough medication. Willow didn't get a moment of silence on the House floor either because she was just another child killed by someone who was supposed to love her. You definitely didn't hear about the two people found dead in the house in Mead Valley, California, on August 5. No one published their names or their ages or whether anyone noticed they were dead. The same can be said for an unidentified woman killed on the street in Los Angeles on August 8, two unidentified men killed in a parking lot on August 13 in Milwaukee, and two unidentified women killed on the street on August 28 in St. Louis. They certainly didn't get a moment of silence on the House floor because they were just more anonymous victims of gun violence. There have been 322 mass shootings this year, more shootings than there have been days in the year so far; 416 people gunned down; 1,161 people who have been injured. Yet we only tell their stories if the killing is particularly large, like the Pulse nightclub, or particularly terrifying and political, like the San Bernardino terrorist attacks. Daily mass shootings have somehow become commonplace, their victims nameless and mourned only by those who knew them. But I say that this is a national tragedy, and we should all mourn. We should grieve for Antonio Hinkle, who was 32 when he was killed at a cookout on August 27 in Brighton, Alabama. He died pushing children out of the way of gunfire, and he left behind three children of his own. We should grieve for Isaiah Solomon, 15, and Tafari West, 22, who were killed when someone opened fire on a vigil for another dead teenager on August 27 in Miami, Florida. We should grieve for Shannon Randall, 35; her boyfriend, Joseph Turner, 27; her brother, Robert Brown, 26; and their relatives Justin Reed, 23, and Chelsea Reed, 22, who were killed in their sleep by a friend's boyfriend on August 20 in Citronelle, Alabama. They were sheltering their friend who had fled an abusive relationship. Chelsea was 5 months pregnant when she and the others were gunned down. These are the people who don't make the national news: the girl walking to her neighborhood convenience store, the boy playing on the front lawn, the woman trying to leave an abusive relationship, the grandfather sitting on his porch. They were robbed of life because this Congress refuses to act. Colleagues, we must honor them by speaking out. Now is the time for a vote. Let's lift the ban on research on gun violence. Let's expand background checks to all gun purchases. Let's close loopholes that let known and suspected terrorists buy guns. Let's commit resources to make smart guns that are less dangerous to children who find them. A little girl was killed while sitting on her porch right next to her mother. Say her name, Tamia Sanders, and honor her memory with more than a moment of silence.

Ms. SPEIER

Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) for his comments. He hit the nail on the head. There are so many important resources, there are so many important services that we need to fund, and yet we don't find the money for that. Meanwhile, we have six ships, five of which have had problems, flaws, and yet we will not only continue to fund those ships, continue to rehabilitate those ships, but they are going to add three more. When will we finally get the message that there is something wrong with this ship? Let's go back to the drawing board. Let's do this the right way. Let's not build more ships until we find out what is really wrong. This ship has not been fully tested yet. Imagine if we put cars on the road that haven't been fully tested and then were breaking down and they were being towed. Would we put up with that? Absolutely not. But we are putting up with it when it comes to the funding of these ships, and I think it is a travesty. I would say the LCS program has to go. Not just the name, because we have already proven that it is not subject to littoral shorelines. It is not eligible for combat survivability, and there is a big question as to whether or not it is a ship at all since it has the potential, or the propensity, to sink or to break down. Let's trim the fat from this pork ship and finally sink it. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, tonight we are going to talk about pork ships. Now, you may be scratching your head. What is a pork ship? Well, a pork ship was a name coined by POLITICO. Some may think, well, maybe that is a creative barbecue dish. Or military historians might say: Well, maybe it has something to do with the Bay of Pigs. Others might think it is an Oscar Mayer-sponsored cruise liner. But all those guesses would be wrong. The term actually applies to a chronically unreliable ship, the littoral combat ship. Well, how unreliable is this ship? In just the last 9 months, four of the six ships that we have built as Littoral combat ships have been in trouble. They have broken down. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have been working to rein in this program for years. Unfortunately, the ship's manufacturers and some Members of Congress seem intent on throwing good money after bad. The LCS has cost us almost $20 billion so far; $20 billion for six ships. But we have many more that we are going to build that are going to be flawed and that will break down. So the total cost of the ships over the course of the program is a mind-blowing $120 billion. That is right, $120 billion. Now, we are scraping right now to find enough money for the defense budget. We are scraping right now to come up with $2 billion to protect Americans from the Zika virus. Meanwhile, we are spending truckloads of money on ships that don't float. Now, maybe I am being a little hyperbolic here, but I am going to follow through by talking about the history of the ship. The ship is so poorly conceived that even the name, littoral combat ship, doesn't fit. The term ``littoral'' means that the ship should be able to operate along the shoreline. Yet, Navy officials have admitted that they haven't studied carefully enough whether the LCS is the right ship for warfare in shallow waters. Combat. Combat isn't accurate either since the Defense Department's Testing Office has said the LCS is not survivable in combat settings. Littoral combat ship. It doesn't meet the term ``littoral.'' It doesn't meet the term ``combat.'' And considering that one of these ships spent 58 percent of a 10-month deployment idle in a port, we might suggest that maybe it is not even a ship. The Navy now wants to call it something else. Since this grand scheme that was concocted back in the 1990s doesn't quite fit today, let's just rename it a frigate. So what is a frigate? A frigate is a heavy, slow, and survivable ship. The littoral combat ship meets the heavy because it is much heavier than it was supposed to be. It is much slower than it is supposed to be, but it is not survivable. So the question then becomes: What are we doing? We are never going to get back the nearly $20 million we have already appropriated on that vessel, but are we going to spend extraordinary sums of money on something that didn't meet the initial expectations and has proven over and over again that it is not working? Let's talk about the evolution of the LCS and how we got to this point. One of the primary reasons for building the LCS was to increase the size of the Navy by building smaller and presumably cheaper vessels. However, there was never a consistent agreement on the LCS' mission. Military correspondent David Axe has called the LCS ``Frankenstein's warship'' and questioned whether the LCS should be a heavily armored combat vessel, a mine clearer, a submarine hunter, a low-cost patroller. How about a small, fast amphibious ship? It was apparently meant to be all those things, yet we seem to have ended up with a ship that can do none of these things. Since the Navy didn't conduct rigorous analysis on the ship until billions of dollars were already spent, they were building it without a strategic plan. As a result, the LCS program has changed its fundamental acquisition plan--now, get this--four times since 2005. We now have a ship that is less survivable and less lethal than originally planned. The real threshold question is: Do we really want to put our sailors' lives at risk on a vulnerable ship? That should be the threshold question. If this ship is so plagued with flaws and is not survivable in combat, are we not putting our sailors at risk? On top of the fact that the LCS is struggling to perform its intended missions, it is turning out to be the proverbial lemon. As detailed by a Politico article in July, the ship's maiden voyages have been marked by cracked hulls, engine failures, unexpected rusting, software glitches, and weapons malfunctions. So let's start with February 2011. Here we are. What happened there? In February 2011, the USS Freedom sprung a 6-inch crack in its hull that required several months' worth of repairs. All right, that is the USS Freedom. Now we are in June 2011, just a few months later, and we find that the USS Independence has suffered severe corrosion and has been sidelined. In December 2012, the Defense Department's director of operational test and evaluation released a report saying: ``The LCS is not expected to be survivable . . . in a hostile combat environment.'' Now, this is the office within the Department of Defense within the Department that is charged with making sure our weapons are safe, effective, and accurate; and the testing office is saying: Do you know what? It is not survivable. In July 2013, the USS Freedom was, once again, immobilized during a trial run. So it has got two strikes now. Also in July of 2013, the GAO urged Congress to restrict the purchase of new LCS until the Navy completed technical and design studies and figured out how much it will cost to fix the vessel's problems. These were very good suggestions. Now, we pay these departments to make these recommendations. But guess what. We just ignored it. We move from July 2013 to December 2014, Secretary of Defense Hagel directed the Navy to study ways to improve the program. However, the Navy doubled down on its failed strategy and prioritized costs and schedule considerations over mission requirements. In December 2015, the USS Milwaukee--yet another LCS--broke down and had to be towed 40 miles after a software malfunction. In the same month, Secretary of Defense Carter directed the Navy to cut the program which would save billions of dollars. Once again, Congress resisted these efforts. Another LCS, the USS Fort Worth, in January 2016 was sidelined because its operators failed to follow proper maintenance procedures. In June of this year, GAO recommended Congress not fund any LCS for 2017. So what did Congress do? In a strained budget, did we heed the GAO? No. No, we didn't. The NDAA authorized not one, not two, but three new ships--three new ships--adding $1.5 billion to the budget. Now, this is after the GAO said: Do not authorize any more LCS this year. What did we do? We actually upped the department's request of two to three. But there is more. In July of this year, the USS Freedom--oh, my God, the third time--yet again encountered more mechanical issues. How bad is it? This time its engine will need to be rebuilt or replaced. This is a $400 million ship that has been in dock, paralyzed, and towed in three times already, and now we are being told we have to replace or rebuild the engine. Then most recently, yet another--there are only six of them, mind you, and five of them have had problems. In August of this year, the USS Coronado broke down because of an engineering problem. Despite all of these problems and all of these warnings, what do we do in Congress? We continue to throw money at this ship. Lemons may float in water, but this lemon of a ship evidently does not, and it is taking taxpayer money to the bottom of the ocean with it. Even the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain, has questioned the LCS program, demonstrating that this is not a partisan issue. Members, we have a responsibility to take care of the taxpayers' dollars. It makes you wonder why certain House Members are so committed to not just sustaining, but boosting the LCS production. Aren't we supposed to be prudent with taxpayer money? The answer may be looking at what the shipbuilders were doing in Washington from January to March of this year. During that time, these shipbuilders were spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobby Congress. Do you know what? I bet we are all paying for that in the bottom line of that particular contract. I experienced firsthand what that money can buy when I attempted to introduce an amendment to the FY 2017 Defense Appropriations bill that would have reduced the total ships purchased from three to two for this fiscal year. Now, the Rules Committee apparently decided that my amendment was not germane to the bill. I mean, truly, that is right. An amendment on defense spending was deemed not relevant to a defense spending bill. This wasn't an absurd proposal either; it was in line with the President's budget request. It certainly wasn't a poison pill. That one ship represented only about 0.06 percent of the total defense budget. In hindsight, I should have followed GAO's recommendation to not fund any LCS next year. I thought only going with two ships was a fair compromise. We won't know because we weren't even allowed to vote on it. That is what we do here. We avoid voting on controversial issues. But that is our job, and this is more than just controversial. This is spending taxpayer money and spending it poorly. Even LCS shipbuilder Lockheed Martin must have been surprised that my amendment never reached the House floor. They had already sent out a letter urging a ``no'' vote on it. Now, as I mentioned, it never even got considered because it was held to be nongermane in a defense spending bill. But their arguments for voting against the amendment are about effective as a littoral combat ship is at a littoral combat, which is to say not very. Lockheed said that if we reduced the LCS program, the Navy would be ``unable to sustain fleet capability and meet global requirements.'' However, the Secretary of Defense said that cutting the LCS would actually improve our naval forces by allowing us to invest in more pressing needs. Lockheed's letter also said that we shouldn't reduce the LCS program because ``ship count is crucial for the Navy to meet its tactical missions.'' Ship count may be an important measurement of capability, but we should not be spending billions of dollars just to reach an arbitrary ship number, especially if those ships aren't survivable in combat or stall out on the open seas and have to be towed back to port. But that is what we are funding. We are funding flawed ship design, and we are funding flawed ships that are costing us a truckload of money. Lockheed also maintains if we cut the program it would force the shipyards to shut down. But that is not even true. The GAO says both companies who work on the LCS variants already have enough work on the books to keep their shipyards running to the year 2021. Fortunately, there is still an opportunity to salvage some savings from this shipbuilding program. The NDAA conference committee has been meeting to discuss provisions for the final bill. The Senate version supports Secretary Carter's directive to reduce the number of LCS. As a member of the conference committee, I have argued for the adoption of this provision. Cutting the total number of ships will save billions of dollars of taxpayer money over the long run. As wasteful and as unnecessary as this program has been, it is just the tip of the iceberg of Congress forcing the Defense Department to spend taxpayer money on weapons it does not want and only seem to benefit certain industries. For example, the House NDAA bill redirects $18 billion in critical funding for wartime operations towards programs the Defense Department did not request. As a result, the bill would only fund the Defense Department through next April, effectively sidestepping the Bipartisan Budget Act compromise signed onto by both Republicans and Democrats that we reached just last year and putting funding for combat operations at risk. In any budget environment, this is not the way we should be doing business, but House Republicans think nothing of engaging in these wasteful and irresponsible budget shenanigans--and some Democrats, too. Now, I am all for Congress revisiting budget caps and looking for waste and areas where spending and support should be increased. But I do not support cutting funding to crucial, existing programs to fund programs the military doesn't even want. Furthermore, should we be funding programs and should we be funding weapons that have not been fully tested, as the LCS is, that has already shown that it is flawed, that has already shown that five out of the six ships that are afloat have had problems, and they are big problems? Whom do we work for? Do we work for big business; or do we work for the American people? Throwing taxpayer money at failed programs solely for the benefit of industry is not how we should be operating. I am going to stop here. I am joined by my colleague from Minnesota. He is one of the most outspoken people in this Congress on issues around fairness in budgeting, and I am grateful that he is here. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Ms. SPEIER

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, the minority has for many months now begged and pleaded to have a bill come to this floor for a vote on gun violence prevention. We have even had a sit-in. But all that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are willing to do is have moments of silence and then be silent. The only moments of silence are for those names that are in the headlines. That is not good enough. All of the deaths matter, and all of the deaths from mass shootings in the month of July deserve to be recognized by all of us. So as I have done each month since the beginning of this year, I will now read the names of all those who were killed in mass shootings in the month of July: Alex Freeman, 28, and Marcus Cal, also 28, were killed on July 4 in Chattanooga. Armando Cardona, 45, and Naome Innis, 35, were killed on July 4 in Phoenix. Charles Jackson, 28, Jamal Dataunte Dixon-Lackey, 26, and Daquarius Tucker, 19, were killed at a Fourth of July block party in Houston, Texas. Daquarius' brother was also shot and killed this summer. Police said both brothers were innocent bystanders. Demetrius Grant, 39, was killed at a party on July 5 in LA. Jeffrey Adams, 52, was killed by his neighbor on July 5 in Hiram, Georgia. Jennifer Rooney, 44, was killed by a mass shooter while driving on July 7 in Bristol, Tennessee. Five Dallas police officers--Brent Thompson, Patrick Zamarripa, Michael Krol, Michael Smith, and Lorne Aherns--were killed in the line of duty on July 7 in Dallas, Texas. Domingo Rodriguez Rhines, 40, was killed in Shreveport, Louisiana. Joseph Zangaro, 61, and Ron Kienzle, 60, both court bailiffs, were killed by an escaping suspect on July 11 in St. Joseph, Michigan. Jacara Sproaps, 38, and Maurice Partlow, 40, were killed by Jacara's ex-boyfriend on July 13 in St. Louis, Missouri. Jacara was an elementary school principal beloved by the community. Eric Gaiter, 22, was killed July 14 in Akron, Ohio, while at a vigil for another gun violence victim. Three unidentified people were killed at a home in Crosby, Texas. Joseph Lamar, 38, Janell Renee Knight, 43, and Zachary David Thompson, 36, were killed by their friend on July 15 in Woodland, Washington. Miguel Bravo, 21, was killed when gunmen open-fired on the house party next door on July 16 in Bakersfield, California. Three police officers, Montrell Jackson, 32, Matthew Gerald, 41, and Brad Garafola, 45, were killed in the line of duty on July 17 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Edward James Long, 49, was killed on July 17 in Houston, Texas, while standing outside a Walgreens. Bobbie Odneal, III, 23, and Rickey McGowan, 25, were killed on July 23 at a nightclub in Cincinnati, Ohio. Erica Rodriguez, 21, her 3-year-old son, and Paula Nino, 20, were killed by Erica's boyfriend on July 23 in Bastrop, Texas. Kalif Goens, 22, was killed by his brother on July 24 in a bar in Hamilton, Ohio. Sean Archilles, 14, and Stef'An Strawder, 18, were killed outside an under-18 club on July 25 in Fort Myers, Florida. Denzel Childs, 25, and Kayana Armond, 34, were killed on July 28 at a block party in Chicago, Illinois. Jessica Williams, 16, witnessed the shooting and suffered an asthma attack that killed her. Davon Harper, 23, was killed on July 28 in Baltimore, Maryland. Anna Bui, Jake Long, and Jordan Ebner, all 19, were killed on July 30 in Washington when Anna's ex-boyfriend showed up at the house party with an AR-15. Carole Comer, 71; her son, John Comer, 50; and her daughter, Rebecca Kelleher, 45, were killed by their husband and father on July 30 in Bridgeton, Missouri. Takeeya Fulton, 39, and her children, Nuckeria and Corey, were killed by Takeeya's boyfriend on July 31 in Miami-Dade County, Florida. A few words about my constituent, Teqnika Moultrie, 30, who was killed on July 31 in Austin, Texas. She was from San Carlos and worked as a school bus driver for Sequoia Union High School District. She was visiting with her wife's family in Austin when a gunman opened fire as she exited a doughnut shop. She died in her wife's arms. They had only been married for 3 months. After her death, her wife said: We just wanted to live a normal life, an everyday life and raise a family, be good moms and do it together. Now we don't get to do anything. So many of these people killed at parties, on the sidewalks, and in their homes by people who were supposed to love them don't get to do any of that. Mr. Speaker, deaths matter. All deaths matter.

Ms. SPEIER

Ms. SPEIER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, in reclaiming my time, I will accept that on behalf of the 200,000 dogs in San Francisco and the many more in San Mateo County, and I thank the gentleman for his support. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this bipartisan amendment to the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act to ensure my constituents and those who visit the Golden Gate National Recreation Area will be able to enjoy the park as it is intended to be enjoyed. The Golden Gate National Recreation Area is in the bay area and was envisioned to have multiple complementary uses. This is enshrined in its mission statement ``to preserve and enhance the natural, historic, and scenic resources of the lands north and south of the Golden Gate for the education, recreation, and inspiration of people today and in the future.'' However, the National Park Service is moving forward on a severely restrictive rule on an activity that many bay area residents presently enjoy in the GGNRA, and that is dog walking. Dog walking off leash has been allowed in certain areas of the GGNRA for 40 years, but under a new proposed rule this amendment addresses, it would dramatically restrict access. While the NPS wants to treat all parks the same, the GGNRA has enjoyed off-leash walking for decades with little or no problems. As one of our Nation's few urban parks, it requires dog rules that fit the unique place in our community. I have heard from literally thousands of San Francisco and San Mateo County residents who oppose the rule. Dog owners certainly must act responsibly. As a dog owner myself, I understand that I must make sure my dog is well trained and safe for all visitors to the GGNRA. I don't think all of the GGNRA should be open to off-leash dogs, only designated off-leash areas that won't impact our native wildlife and flora and fauna. I love my dog, Buddy, a beautiful yellow Lab. I love walking him, and he certainly enjoys the fresh air and being off leash and free to roam. So this amendment is for Buddy and for all the ``Buddies'' in the bay area that enjoy the GGNRA. Buddy has been there for me, and, tonight, I am here for him and for all of his four-legged buddies.

Ms. SPEIER

Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, ever since the Sandy Hook shooting, Republicans have told us that the silver bullet solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. After the Pulse nightclub massacre, Donald Trump said it would have been a beautiful sight if people had fired back. Though Trump's endorsement of combining alcohol with firearms was too extreme even for the NRA, they still encourage people to carry guns to campuses, public parks, and everyplace else. Let's talk about the good guys with guns. Twelve good guys, Dallas law enforcement officers, men and women, trained to shoot, were stopped by one bad guy. Five officers were killed and seven were wounded. Whether it is a security guard or an entire police force, there is no stopping a single bad guy with a military-style assault rifle. If our best trained officers can be thwarted, how could the average shooter stop another shooter? It is time for Congress to focus on the needs of our constituents over gun manufacturers' profits. Instead of flooding the streets with more guns, let's vote on commonsense gun laws.

Ms. SPEIER

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. I rise to offer my amendment to the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act to improve the FTC enforcement of the Do Not Call Registry list, and to improve public education about FTC- supported solutions that can block these malicious and annoying robocalls. Mr. Chair, all of us have suffered the repeated ringing from calls from unknown numbers from robocalls. It only takes one day sitting at home to realize how invasive robocalls have become. This is what our elderly and retired citizens have to deal with every single day. Robocall scammers steal over $350 million every year from those who fall prey to incessant calls. Without proper enforcement and support from the FTC, these calls will continue and all of our constituents will continue to suffer. This amendment I offer today would increase funding for the FTC for the purpose of additional enforcement of the Do Not Call Registry and for educating for consumers about their options. The relatively small increase in this amendment would result in 6.5 percent more funds for enforcement. Since 2004, the FTC has brought in $41 million in penalties. That's a paltry $3.4 million each year. Considering scammers owe the FTC an estimated $1.2 billion in penalties, there's a lot more that can be done. For the past several years, the FTC has held contests to support the development of robocall blocking apps such as Nomorobo and Robokiller. However, many people don't know that they are free and are effective solutions for some consumers. By allowing the FTC to conduct more education and outreach, this amendment would further leverage existing FTC investment in this area. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. This amendment would provide a significant increase to the FTC's ability to crack down on illegal robocalls and provide our constituents some peace for the constant robocall ringing. With that, I urge my colleagues to vote yes.

Ms. SPEIER

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the outstanding comments of my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano). I couldn't agree with him more. I am, proudly, a member and co-chair of our task force against gun violence. I proudly support every American's right to own a firearm. I believe as strongly as anyone in this room that all we are trying to do here is get a vote, a simple vote--let the votes fall where they may--a simple vote on closing loopholes as they relate to background checks and making sure terrorists can't buy guns if they can't even fly. Now, over the last many months, I have spent many 5-minutes talking about all those who have died because of mass shootings in this country. I have a memorial wall outside my office that is filling up quite quickly with all the lives that have been lost because of mass shootings. During our sit-in on the House floor last week, we read the names of those in Orlando who were victims. Today, I am going to remember the 54 other victims last month in 51 other mass shootings that took place in the month of June. Even excluding Orlando, so many people last month were affected by mass shootings that I don't have time within my 5 minutes to list those who were injured but survived. Here are those who died in mass shootings in June that were not victims in Orlando: Devonne Burton, 28; Sean Pointe, 27; and Derrius Woods, 27; were killed on June 4 in Denver, Colorado. Brian Harris, 44, and Robert Sykes, also 44, were killed when a gunman opened fire in a motel on June 5 in Phoenix, Arizona. Jeremy Taylor, 54, and Sean Strickland, 26, were killed when a gunman opened fire in a convenience store on June 7 in Cape Coral, Florida. Raekwon Brown, 17, was killed outside a school on June 8 in Dorchester, Massachusetts. Adrian Potts, 20, was killed outside of a university apartment complex on June 11 in Charlotte, North Carolina. Stephanie Gonzalez, 17, and her sister, Kimberly Gonzalez, 13, were killed by their mother's ex-boyfriend on June 11 in Los Angeles, California. The shooter also wounded their mother and brother. Cynthia Villegas, 34, and her daughters, Yamilen, 14, Cynthia Janeth, 11, Abby, 7, and Ida, 3, were killed by their husband and father on June 11 in Roswell, New Mexico. An unidentified 30-year-old man was killed outside an ice skating park on June 11 in Stockton, California. Reggina Jefferies, 16, was killed as she was attending a memorial service on June 14 in Oakland, California. She had just performed a praise dance honoring two boys who drowned. Robert Marto, 54, and Jason Moore, 41, were killed outside of a bar on June 18 in Warren, Ohio. Cameron Wilkins, 21, and Felicia Williams, 32, were killed in a housing complex on June 18 in Waycross, Georgia. Cameron had seven children. Ronald Graves, 30, was killed in a house on June 19 in Exmore, Virginia. Gary Porter, 41, was killed at a party on June 19 in Syracuse, New York. He had four children. Monte Compton, 24, and his cousin, Donte Jefferson, 29, were killed on June 21 in Louisville, Kentucky. Gerald Berkey, 36, Jackson Edens, 28, and Terron McGrath, 31, were killed in a trailer on June 22 in Lacey, Washington. Terron leaves behind two daughters, 8 and 12. An unidentified man was killed on June 22 in DeKalb County, Georgia. Carlina Renee Gray, 50, Jan Marie Parks, 55, and Allen Rowlett, 60, were killed on June 24 in District Heights, Maryland. Treavon Lewis, 22, and Jordan Larkin, 18, were killed at a dance club on June 25 in Fort Worth, Texas. Fernando Wingfield, 44, was killed outside a bar on June 26 in Atlanta, Georgia. An unidentified man was killed on June 26 near a pool in Houston, Texas. Ruben Rigoberto-Reyes, 60, Edmundo Amaro-Bajonero, 26, and Katie Gildersleeve, 30, were killed on June 27 on a blueberry farm in Woodburn, Oregon. Phoukeo Dej-Oudom, 35, and her children, Dalavanh, 15, Xonajuk, 14, and Anhurak, 9, were killed by their husband and father on June 29 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Chanda Foreman, 37, was killed while sitting in her car on June 30, in Chicago, Illinois. It was her birthday and she was going out to celebrate. This carnage must end. Just give us a vote on two modest bills to help stem the bloodshed.

Ms. SPEIER

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, on the Fourth of July in my district I held a sit-in at a local movie theater to declare our independence from the NRA. The gun lobby doesn't have a single vote in this House. Or does it have 247? I ask that question because we can't even get a vote on the floor-- just a vote--to prevent suspected terrorists who can't buy a plane ticket in the United States, but they can go out and buy a gun, no questions asked. The NRA has spoken. Only a bill that would require the FBI to establish by probable cause that the person is a terrorist and do so in a court of law and do so within 3 days, otherwise the gun would be turned over to the terrorist. And, by the way, you would also have to inform the terrorist that they are on the suspected or known list. It is a laughable proposal. It is a fig leaf, and it is a joke if it wasn't such an important issue. The NRA spends $3.7 million on the candidates in the House and the Senate. It is time for them to no longer have a seat in this House.

Ms. SPEIER

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, due to an unforeseen conflict, I unavoidably missed the following votes June 22-23, 2016. Had I been present I would have voted as follows: On roll call No. 337, I would have voted ``nay'' (June 22) (On Ordering the Previous Question for H.J. Res. 88, ``Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to the definition of the term `Fiduciary.' '') On roll call No. 338, I would have voted ``nay'' (June 22) (On passage, objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding for H.J. Res. 88, ``Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to the definition of the term `Fiduciary.' '') On roll call No. 339, I would have voted ``nay'' (June 23) (On Motion to Fix Next Convening Time.) On roll call No. 340, I would have voted ``nay'' (June 23) (On Motion to Adjourn.) On roll call No. 341, I would have voted ``nay'' (June 23) (On Agreeing to the Resolution ``Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2577) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes; providing for proceedings during the period from June 23, 2016, through July 4, 2016; and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.'') On roll call No. 342, I would have voted ``nay'' (June 23) (On Agreeing to the Conference Report H.R. 2577, ``Making appropriations for the Department of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016.'')

Ms. SPEIER

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, due to an unforeseen conflict, I unavoidably missed the following votes on June 21, 2016. Had I been present I would have voted as follows: On roll call No. 334, I would have voted ``nay'' (June 21) (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 5525, ``End Taxpayer Funded Cell Phones Act of 2016.'') On roll call No. 335, I would have voted ``yea'' (June 21) (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 5388, ``Support for Rapid Innovation Act of 2016.'') On roll call No. 336, I would have voted ``yea'' (June 21) (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 5389, ``Leveraging Emerging Technologies Act of 2016.'')

Mr. SPEIER

Mr. SPEIER. ``And finally, to girls everywhere, I am with you. On nights when you feel alone, I am with you. When people doubt you or dismiss you, I am with you. I fought everyday for you. So never stop fighting, I believe you. As the author Anne Lamott once wrote, ``Lighthouses don't go running all over an island looking for boats to save; they just stand there shining.'' Although I can't save every boat, I hope that by speaking today, you absorbed a small amount of light, a small knowing that you can't be silenced, a small satisfaction that justice was served, a small assurance that we are getting somewhere, and a big, big knowing that you are important, unquestionably, you are untouchable, you are beautiful, you are to be valued, respected, undeniably, every minute of every day, you are powerful and nobody can take that away from you. To girls everywhere, I am with you. Thank you.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SPEIER

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, we are doing something tonight that has never been done before on the House floor. We will read the entire gut- wrenching statement of the sexual assault survivor who was attacked on the Stanford campus last year. The sexual predator received a paltry sentence of 6 months in county jail, of which he will serve only 3 for committing a violent crime. We are not moved by the felon's excuse of alcohol. We are not moved by the judge, who said a longer sentence would have a ``severe impact'' on the offender. We are not moved by the felon's father, who said that his son should not serve jail time for ``20 minutes of action.'' Emily Doe is a survivor in every sense of the word, and her words deserve to be amplified. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we read the statement in its entirety without yielding, by name, to each Member, to preserve the continuity of the reading.