Eric Swalwell

Mr. SWALWELL of California

Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, in every chapter from the story of America's success, we find countless examples of the contributions made by immigrants. In fact, it begins in our prologue: we are a nation founded by immigrants. Yet, over the weekend, a Member of this House, Mr. King of Iowa, said: ``We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies.'' There is nothing to restore. We are the greatest country in the world. But, worse, by disparaging the value of somebody else's babies, Mr. King argues for an America void of people of color or who worship differently than he does. That is not who we are. Behind me are a few small examples of somebody else's babies: people who immigrated to America or whose families immigrated to America, practicing many different faiths, coming from many different countries. They include the daughter of Chinese immigrants who became one of America's most celebrated and best-selling authors, Amy Tan; the son of a Syrian migrant, Steve Jobs, who founded Apple; and the son of a Kenyan student, who recently finished two terms as the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama. These are not somebody else's babies. These are immigrants and the children of immigrants, and they are our babies. I was born and baptized in Sac City, Iowa, located in Mr. King's district. It is where I learned from Exodus 22:21, ``You must not mistreat or oppress foreigners in any way. Remember, you yourselves were once foreigners.'' And from the Iowans I know, they were raised to accept and love the same way. I hope my colleagues join me in denouncing bigoted, hateful, and divisive rhetoric, and let's celebrate the beautiful diversity that has always made our Nation shine: these beautiful ``somebody else's babies'' who are America's babies.

Mr. SWALWELL of California

Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize John Creighton on the occasion of his retirement after 33 years of dedicated public service as a Deputy District Attorney for Alameda County. John's life of service began in 1971, when he enlisted in the U.S. Army. He served in the Intelligence Corps, operating out of the U.S. Army headquarters in Vietnam providing counterintelligence work. In 1973, he worked in Psychological Operations at JFK Special Forces Center at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, eventually being honorably discharged with the rank of Sergeant in 1974. In 1979, he enrolled at the University of California at Berkeley, and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. John would go on to receive his Juris Doctorate from the University of San Francisco School of Law in 1984. During his time in college, John worked as a union laborer, truck driver, auto mechanic and paralegal. In 1984, John was hired by the Alameda County District Attorney's (DA) Office in Oakland. John's distinguished career spanned over three decades, and he prosecuted hundreds of cases, including murder, domestic violence, sexual assault and major narcotics trafficking. In the DA's office, John was tasked as a Gang Violence Prosecutor, handling complex gang-related felonies at all stages of prosecution, as well as serving as a DA representative to the nationally recognized Gang Intervention Program. John received the Neighborhood Champion Award in 2014 for his work. John not only served his community in the courtroom, but also devotes his time as a soccer referee with the Jack London Youth Soccer League. Additionally, John previously served as a member on the Board of Directors for both Planned Parenthood Golden Gate and Golden Gate Community Health. John has fostered lasting, productive partnerships in the East Bay and laid the foundation for others to succeed. His legacy is one of selfless service and tireless justice and compassion, leaving our community and nation safer for all of us. I wish to congratulate John on a long and distinguished career, and I wish him health and happiness in retirement.

Mr. SWALWELL of California

Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, regarding the question considered yesterday, Wednesday, March 8, on passage of H.R. 1301, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2017, Roll Call Number 136, I am recorded as voting Yes. I intended to vote No.

Mr. SWALWELL of California

Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. McGovern for his work on this issue. I love my country, and I don't doubt that every one of my colleagues in this Chamber also loves this country. I admire every man and woman who has so bravely fought to defend it. After all, this is a country, this is a democracy worth defending. That is actually what defeating this previous question would take us to, the question of is this democracy still worth defending. This past election, our democracy was attacked. The attack was electronic, and it was nearly invisible. It came from a foreign adversary in Russia, ordered by Vladimir Putin. It was intended to help Donald Trump. Most concerning, the public intelligence report about this attack, the last finding is, Russia intends to do this again. They are undertaking a lessons-learned campaign so they can attack the United States again and attack our allies, the best check against Russia through the NATO alliance. Yesterday, the President removed a rotten plank in what is a compromised platform, Michael Flynn. In 2015, he went to Russia and sat next to Vladimir Putin, was paid for it, and, The New York Times reported yesterday, did not disclose that in the proper way he is supposed to to the Department of Defense. Because Russia attacked us, President Obama issued sanctions against Russia on December 28. Michael Flynn called Russia, its Ambassador, five times, at least five times, and discussed those sanctions, likely in violation of the Logan Act. He lied about it, lied to the Vice President about it, who went on national TV and defended Michael Flynn, saying it never happened. But here is what we also learned. We learned that 3 weeks ago the White House knew, because acting Attorney General Sally Yates told the White House, that Michael Flynn had lied and had put himself in a position where he could be compromised through blackmail by the Russian Government. Yet, despite knowing this, the White House allowed Michael Flynn to remain as the National Security Adviser, receive security briefings at the highest level, and advise our President on our security. All of the arrows continue to point to the Russian Government. We have more questions today than we did yesterday about whether there were any personal, political, or financial connections between President Trump, his family, his businesses, his campaign, and the Russian Government before the election and whether there are any efforts right now going on to pay back the Russian Government.

Mr. SWALWELL of California. All of the arrows continue to point to Russia. It is not disputed that Russia carried out this attack. It is not disputed that it was ordered by President Putin. It is not disputed that they sought to help Donald Trump. It is not disputed that Donald Trump admires President Putin and can't say a single bad thing about him. Despite disparaging our allies in Australia and Mexico, he can't say a bad thing about Putin. In fact, he wants to ease some of the sanctions against Russia and wants to roll back the influence of NATO. Of course, while all of this is going on, the President will not show us his tax returns. With all of those arrows pointing to Russia, the American people deserve to know what was the political, personal, and financial relationship between the President and his team and Russia. The only way to get there is to have an independent, bipartisan- appointed commission. Defeating the previous question and bringing up the Protecting Our Democracy Act will get us one step closer. I believe that my Republican colleagues--who love this great country as much as I do--can join us, and this can be a bipartisan quest to say that never again will we allow a foreign adversary to interfere in our elections.

Mr. SWALWELL of California

Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 387, the Email Privacy Act. As I said last Congress, current law is woefully out of date when it comes to protecting privacy in electronic communications. I support H.R. 387, just as I supported the same legislation previously, because it is long past time we afforded Americans the privacy they are due online. At the same time, I am disappointed this bill has come straight to the Floor, and not through the Judiciary Committee, a committee on which I sit. Nor are any Members able to offer amendments on the Floor. Going through the committee process and allowing amendments on the Floor would have enabled us to address some of the concerns raised by law enforcement about H.R. 387, such as its view that the bill fails to enable personnel to expediently obtain critical evidence. As a former prosecutor I share its interest in making sure that while we improve privacy protections we do not impede the ability to bring people swiftly to justice. I urge the Senate to work to address the points raised by law enforcement so we can continue to improve H.R. 387. I encourage all Members to support H.R. 387.

Mr. SWALWELL of California

Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, America is and must remain a country that welcomes refugees, and we must welcome refugees of all religions. President Trump has our country under a Muslim ban that makes us less safe and less American. Less safe because we already have in place since World War II a process for vetting refugees who come to this country, an intense process that takes 18 to 24 months before anyone can get here. Less safe because it makes us less of a team player on an international stage that requires cooperation among our allies and those in the Middle East who are helping us fight terrorism. If we are not taking on refugees, as our allies, like Jordan and Germany and others who are in the thick of this fight, we will not be seen as a team player and we will not be able to count on them for cooperation. Less safe because it motivates and inspires an enemy who is determined to dispel a message that the United States is not welcome to Muslims. It makes us less American because refugees have helped America as much as America has helped refugees. We have seen this in the wisdom of Albert Einstein, the patriotism of Secretary Madeleine Albright. I have seen this in my own congressional office with my chief of staff, Ricky Le, who came to our country at age 4, on a raft, fleeing Vietnam, and was welcomed into this country, where he was given an opportunity to be the first in his family to go to college, started working on Capitol Hill as an intern, and serves as the chief of staff in my office today. I have seen this spirit of the refugee in Mohammad Usafi, who was my guest at the State of the Union just 2 years ago. Mohammad served our country as an interpreter in Afghanistan. He lost his father, who was kidnapped and killed by the Taliban for his service. His little brother was kidnapped, and he gave his life savings to save his brother's life. We brought Mohammad over to the United States. But today, if Mohammad was on his way to the United States, under this Muslim ban, he would be detained in an airport. But what is American? American is standing up and welcoming people in need. Being American means going to an airport, as I saw thousands do when I went to SFO airport in San Francisco this weekend. I saw the lawyers on our staff working to provide casework to anyone who was detained. I saw the spirit of generosity across our country at airports and town squares. Being an American means supporting Congresswoman Lofgren's SOLVE Act, the Statue of Liberty Values Act, that will fix and end this Muslim ban. Being an American is what Sally Yates did last night when she stood up against an illegal order and she was fired. Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was not the person who deserved to be fired yesterday. To stop this Muslim ban, we must unite in this country; unite and make sure that we are safe and welcoming to those in need; unite to say we will not target people for persecution based on religion; unite to live out, indeed, what we are taught in the Bible. In Luke 10:25, a student asked Jesus: ``What must I do to inherit eternal life?'' Jesus says: ``Love the Lord with all of your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself.'' The student asks: ``Who is my neighbor?'' And Jesus tells him the story of a traveler from Jerusalem headed to Jericho who was attacked, robbed, and beaten along his journey, and stripped of all of his clothes. He encounters a priest, who walks to the other side of the road when he sees the traveler. He encounters a Levite, who also, like the priest, walks to the other side of the road when he sees this beaten, weary traveler. But then he comes across a Samaritan. The Samaritan took pity on the traveler, bandaged his wounds, and took him and paid for him to stay at an inn. Jesus asked the student: ``Which of these men was a neighbor?'' The student said: ``The one who showed mercy.'' Jesus said to the student: ``Go and do likewise.'' To my colleagues in this House, Republicans and Democrats, and Americans across this great land, refugees are our neighbors. They are the weary travelers. How will we receive them? The American spirit is to be like the Samaritan. We must go and do likewise.

Mr. SWALWELL of California

Mr. SWALWELL of California. Madam Speaker, I stand with women and men across our country in opposition to H.R. 7, the latest effort from Republican leaders to take the opportunity for women to make choices about their own healthcare decisions. This weekend, my colleagues and I marched arm in arm with our constituents in women's marches across the country. I heard these Americans, and if you were listening, you would have heard them say, ``my body, my choice''; ``her body, her choice.'' This bill ignores the voices of women and male feminists in the United States. Particularly disturbing, H.R. 7 prevents small businesses that use ACA tax credits from using them to pay for comprehensive health coverage for their employees that includes abortion services. Passage of this bill means the government, whom my colleagues claim is too big, will dramatically expand its role in a woman's healthcare decision. As we have seen time and time again, restrictions like these disproportionately affect low-income women, younger women, and women of color. All women deserve the ability to make their own healthcare decisions without government interference. It is her body. It is her choice. I urge my colleagues to recognize the intrusive, unfair, and unequal consequences of H.R. 7.

Mr. SWALWELL of California

Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, regarding the question considered Tuesday 10, 2017, on passage of H.R. 79, the Helping Angels Lead Our Startups Act or HALOs Act (Roll Call Number 31), I am recorded as voting ``no.'' I intended to vote ``yes.''

Mr. SWALWELL of California

Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and allow an amendment to be put forward on H.R. 356, the Protecting Our Democracy Act. A public report was released on Friday by the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA, and it was chilling. It declared that Russia attacked our democracy in the past Presidential election. It said that the attack came from the Russian services themselves. It was ordered by Vladimir Putin and, most concerning, that Russia had a preferred candidate and that they sought to denigrate Secretary Clinton along the way. Going forward, this is not about relitigating the past. Donald Trump will be the next President. This is about preserving the integrity of our democracy and saying that our dialogue, our democracy, these fights between our parties, they belong to us. The report also said that Russia intends to do this again. We know that Russia has done this before across the globe to our allies. They are doing it right now to other countries as they seek to move forward in their democracies. Now other foreign adversaries of ours will look at what Russia did, if we do nothing, and see an opportunity to strike us again. So we have an opportunity, as Republicans and Democrats, to come together and say that the victims may have been the Democratic Party in this past election and, if history has its way, in the next election it may be a different party. The constant will always remain this: both parties will unite to say, We believe that this democracy, which has been fought and sacrificed for, is worth defending. To do that, we should have an independent, bipartisan, appointed commission to look at how this was able to occur, why our democracy was so vulnerable, and, most importantly, make recommendations to the public to ensure that this never happens again. We should do this so, first, we can devote ourselves fully--with an independent commission, you have full-time members and full-time staffs--to understanding what happened. Second, we should do this to depoliticize what has occurred. The incoming President has continuously undermined the findings of our 17 intelligence agencies that Russia was responsible. We should depoliticize this by taking this out of Congress and having an independent commission, once and for all, sign off on who was responsible and, again, make recommendations to protect us going forward. We should also declassify, to the extent possible, the evidence behind the findings. Finally, once this commission is formed and once congressional investigations also take place, the American people have to come together. We have to come together because we can never again let an outside meddler influence our elections. So we have every single House Democrat cosponsoring this legislation. This legislation should not be partisan at all. When you talk to Republicans and you talk to Democrats in our districts and you talk to Independents, they all express a concern about what Russia did. So what we can do in this House is say: We are united. We are united to get to the bottom of what happened. So I invite my Republican colleagues to join us in the search for what happened. Join us in this responsibility to do everything we can to tell our constituents that, in the next election, we won't let it happen again. Defeat the previous question and support H.R. 356, the Protecting Our Democracy Act.

Mr. SWALWELL of California

Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of this bipartisan IAA and the many provisions that it has that will continue to strengthen and empower our intelligence community and those who serve and toil away for our national security. This bill also contains a few provisions I have personally championed during my time on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. First, it includes the provision I added requiring a report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on programs across the IC, the intelligence community, to help students manage student loan debt and the viability of an IC-wide program, knowing that this is critical for our recruitment and retention of quality intelligence community members. Second, the bill includes a provision that was originally a bipartisan, standalone bill with Representative LoBiondo of New Jersey to track foreign fighters as they attempt to move to and from terrorist safe havens abroad. This bill passed the House at the end of last year by a vote of 423-0. Finally, it includes a requirement for a report on the current utilization of our national laboratories by the intelligence divisions within the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Energy, as well as ways these divisions can expand utilization of lab expertise on cybersecurity. I am honored to represent two of these laboratories, Lawrence Livermore and Sandia, and I have seen firsthand how important their work is to our national security. This bill is the result of both parties and both Chambers coming together to prioritize our intelligence community and national security needs. I also just want to echo what I have heard from our chairman and ranking member, which is that there is really nothing more fulfilling, especially during such national discord, to come to work every day and work with the members on this committee. I think maybe the secret sauce here is that the chairman and the ranking member are both Oakland Raiders fans. I don't know if there are other reasons they work well together, but it really is fulfilling to see that when you go into our committee hearing, Republicans and Democrats put party aside and put national security first. I also want to say that I am going to miss two members as they depart the committee. That is, Congressman Patrick Murphy of Florida. He and I sat next to each other. Although he was in a 2-year-long Senate race, he showed up every day, worked hard, asked tough questions on behalf of his constituents and national security. I am also going to miss Congressman Mike Pompeo of Kansas, and I congratulate him on being nominated as the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I find him to be a person of deep integrity and character. I enjoyed traveling with him to Iraq last Easter, and I look forward to serving with him in his new role.

Mr. SWALWELL of California

Mr. SWALWELL of California. I am opposed in its current form.

Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. SWALWELL of California. 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. Mr. Speaker, this final amendment says plainly that no U.S. business may do business with a country that has used cyber attacks to undermine a U.S. election. So if my colleagues are genuine in believing that Iran is a hopeless adversary, then surely they will join me in believing that Russia, in its efforts to undermine our recent November election, should also be treated as such. This motion is really about the future of two U.S. adversaries: Iran and Russia. Iran, surely a bad actor over the last few decades, has finally in the last couple of years come to the international table and struck an agreement with the United States and many of our allies to make sure that we take it from being a country that is 3 months away from having a nuclear weapon to 1 year away. They continue to sponsor terrorism across the world. But today, better than ever before, we have eyes, ears, and checks and balances on them that we have never had. By the way, we can address all of their bad behavior with them being much farther away from having a nuclear weapon than they were before the Iran nuclear agreement. Russia, however, continues to wreak chaos in the Middle East supporting Syria and its brutal dictator Assad. Russia brought down a commercial airliner over Ukraine and has further incurred into Ukraine taking over Crimea. Russia continues to attack and escalate hostilities with U.S. personnel at our embassy in Moscow. Now the standard bearer for the Republican Party, President-elect Trump, has chosen to embrace Russia and take the United States on a new tack. So the question today is: If you believe Iran is hopeless, then do you believe that we should also make sure no U.S. business does business with a country that is trying to undermine our elections? I want to go through some of that evidence. On October 7 of this year, Director of National Intelligence Clapper said that the intelligence community is confident that the Russian Government directed cyber attacks aimed at disrupting our November elections. Why would Russia do this? Russia clearly had a favored candidate in this race in President- elect Trump. Russia has been successful. This amendment says that you cannot do business with any country that is trying to influence our elections. This amendment says that if you think Iran is a bad actor, then you have to treat Iran the same way you treat Russia. This amendment says that if you think the U.S. should allow businesses to do business with a country trying to undermine our elections, to undermine the will of our constituents, then you should vote against this amendment. If you are with Russia, then you should be against this motion. However, if you believe that we are closer to preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon than we were a year ago, and if you believe that it is better for a U.S. manufacturer to provide commercial airliners to Iran and create U.S. jobs and have eyes and ears on what is going on over there, then you should be for this motion. But if you want our elections to be free and fair from outside influence, then vote for this motion. If you want to stand with Russia, then you should vote against this motion. So I ask my colleagues on the other side: Are you going to embrace the new U.S. foreign policy that your standard bearer has proposed, that we are going to undermine and unravel the agreement that we have struck with Iran and march millions of young men and women back into the Middle East, an area where we have not had major combat operations finally for the first time in 15 years? Or do you think that we should treat Iran the same way that we are treating Russia? So I submit that to my colleagues, and I invite them to maybe engage on that question because that is what this motion is about: Do you stand with Russia? Or do you stand with preventing U.S. businesses from doing business with a country that our intelligence community has said has tried to undermine our elections? Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SWALWELL of California

Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Don Lewis of Pleasanton on recently receiving one of the 2016 Alameda County Arts Leadership Awards. Through his renowned musical ability, innovative spirit, and enthusiasm for teaching, Don has brought joy to the people of the Bay Area and beyond. Don began playing the piano as a high school student in Dayton, Ohio. As a student at the Tuskegee Institute, he sang with the Tuskegee Chorus and performed at freedom rallies led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Don became a pioneer in music technology by inventing the Live Electronic Orchestra, a synthesizer system that influenced the development of synthesizers and sounds modules for decades to come. He has performed at concerts worldwide and worked with many musical greats, such as the Newport Jazz Festival, Quincy Jones, Michael Jackson, and the Beach Boys. In addition to his professional accomplishments, Don is a passionate teacher and an involved member of our community. For nearly thirty years, his ``Say Yes to Music!'' school assemblies have motivated thousands of children across the United States and Canada to pursue their creative interests. He has engaged with Bay Area students at all levels to encourage their musical and artistic pursuits, organizing events where they can learn from each other and showcase their talents to the public. Don also actively participates in service projects as a member of the Rotary Club of Pleasanton. Don's career is truly a testament to the power of music to inspire and bring joy to others. This week, Alameda County honors his outstanding achievements and contributions to our community. I want to congratulate Don on this tremendous honor.

Mr. SWALWELL of California

Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I was privileged to introduce H.R. 3779, the Social Security Fraud Prevention Act, with my friend from California, Congressman Valadao. Identity theft is a major and growing problem in our nation. Almost 18 million Americans were victims of this crime in 2014, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Of those who lost money as a result of their victimization, the average loss was over $1,300. This is a serious, complicated problem from which no one is immune. As in most complex issues, there is not just one solution. We must attack it from a variety of angles. For example, the government certainly shouldn't be making identity theft more likely by making it easier for criminals to get people's Social Security Numbers. Puffing aside the merits, the reality is that Social Security Numbers right now are used in many ways to identify people and secure accounts. Having someone's Social Security Number thus can be very helpful in stealing someone's identity. H.R. 3779 would make it more difficult to steal someone's Social Security Number by prohibiting any federal agency or department from including it on documents sent by mail unless it is determined to be necessary. And, when it is included it would not be visible from the outside of the envelope and would be partially redacted when possible. This is a common sense, bipartisan bill that is one piece of a larger comprehensive effort we need to successfully combat identity theft. I thank Congressman Valadao for sponsoring it and working on it with me. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3779.

Mr. SWALWELL of California

Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, regarding the question considered earlier today on passage of H.R. 3957, the Emergency Citrus Disease Response Act of 2016 (Rollcall No. 528), I am recorded as voting ``no.'' I intended to vote ``yes.''

Mr. SWALWELL of California

Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5625, the Modernizing Government Travel Act. This bill is an important step forward in bringing government employees and federal regulations into the 21st century. Currently, each agency has different policies on what transportation options are available to federal employees for reimbursement. Thus, depending on the agency, some federal employees are unable to be reimbursed for official travel if they use ride-sharing or non-traditional forms of transportation, such as bikeshare. Yet many of these platforms provide cost-effective ways for our government employees to travel quickly and efficiently. H.R. 5625 would address this problem by requiring the General Services Administration (GSA) to implement regulations to allow all federal employees to be reimbursed for these modes of travel. I was privileged to help in the drafting of H.R. 5625, and I want to thank the sponsor, Congressman Seth Moulton, for introducing the bill and working diligently to help move it to the Floor. Last year, Congressman Darrell Issa and I co-founded the bipartisan Congressional Sharing Economy Caucus. We started this caucus in order to bring government attention to the benefits of the sharing economy and to find ways for the federal government to support it, a growing sector of our economy. The bill in front of us helps to encourage the use of sharing economy technology, therefore saving taxpayers money, and fits perfectly within the goals of the Sharing Economy Caucus. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5625 today.

Mr. SWALWELL of California

Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, to honor the memory of Miguel Angel Leon Bravo, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of action on the House floor.

Mr. SWALWELL of California

Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for some votes taken last Thursday, September 8, and all votes on Friday, September 9, due to attending my brother's wedding in Northern California. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Roll Call Vote Number 492 (Motion to Recommit H.R. 2357): YES. Roll Call Vote Number 493 (Passage of H.R. 4909, the Accelerating Access to Capital Act of 2015): NO. Roll Call Vote Number 494 (Motion to Recommit H.R. 5424): YES. Roll Call Vote Number 495 (Passage of H.R. 5424, the Investment Advisers Modernization Act of 2016): NO.

Mr. SWALWELL of California

Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5111, the Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016. One of the most amazing aspects of the Internet is its ability to allow for the sharing of information, and consumers often rely on the reviews of others to make purchasing decisions. This system only works if consumers have access to all information available from across the nation, including both positive and negative reviews. We simply cannot allow companies to bully or attempt to silence customers who want to offer negative but honest assessments of products or services. I was outraged when I first heard last Congress that companies were doing exactly that, using buried contractual terms, known as nondisparagement clauses, to try to block or punish customers for writing negative reviews online. To end this practice I introduced H.R. 5499, the Consumer Review Freedom Act of 2014, a narrow bill designed to outlaw nondisparagement clauses and empower the government to stop companies from using them while maintaining the ability of businesses to sue for traditional defamation. This Congress, Representative Darrell Issa and I introduced a bipartisan version of this legislation. Today the House is considering H.R. 5111, very similar to our Consumer Review Freedom Act but with some improvements. I want to thank Representatives Leonard Lance and Joe Kennedy for introducing this legislation and working diligently to move it forward. The Senate has already passed essentially the same bill, and so I hope once the House acts today the Senate can quickly pass H.R. 5111 and send it to the President's desk for his signature. This will be an important step in protecting a vital source of information for consumers across the country. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 5111. Mr. CARTER of Georgia, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5111, the Consumer Review Fairness Act, which would protect consumers' First Amendment right to share their experiences with a product or service online. Millions of Americans go online every day to read candid experiences from like-minded consumers, and many also share their reviews on everything from restaurants to clothing to hotels and services. American consumers should feel confident in providing honest reviews, as the First Amendment protects their right to express their opinions. As a former small business owner, I know that listening to customer feedback is crucial for success, and that constructive criticism is sometimes more helpful than praise. Unfortunately, some businesses have found ways to bully consumers with costly penalties and lawsuits in an effort to hide negative reviews. Instead of trying to improve their own practices, these bad actors are taking their mistakes out on their own customers. The Consumer Review Fairness Act would stop this unethical practice by prohibiting businesses from penalizing consumers for sharing a review they don't agree with. Our modern day economy is dependent on the free flow of information, and this bill will ensure consumers' rights to openly review products and services are not infringed upon. I would like to thank my colleagues for introducing this important bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SWALWELL of California

Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for certain votes taken yesterday, Wednesday, July 13. If present, I would have voted as follows: Roll Call Vote Number 453 (Passage of H. AMDT. 1342 to H.R. 5538 offered by Rep. Gary Palmer): NO. Roll Call Vote Number 454 (Passage of H. AMDT. 1344 to H.R. 5538 offered by Rep. Paul Gosar): NO.

Mr. SWALWELL of California

Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, we mourn the loss of the police officers in Dallas, and we pray for the recovery of those who are still in the hospital, trying to heal. As a brother of two police officers and as the son of a police officer, this is every family member's worst nightmare to think that, when you see them off to work, you may never see them come home. So we stand here, this House, with the families. We think about Sergeant Scott Lunger, back in Hayward, California, who lost his life on July 22 of last year. It is also not inconsistent, as we mourn the deaths of these police officers, to also ask for justice without delay for Alton Sterling of Louisiana and for Philando Castile of Minnesota. That is not inconsistent. What is inconsistent, though, is to have a moment of silence or to make a call for justice but then to do nothing further in this Chamber--the one place in the world where we can make the greatest difference to reduce gun violence. I hope this House answers that call and does not stand silent any longer but, actually, recognizes why we are here--to keep the public safe and to act.

Mr. SWALWELL of California

Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, to honor the memory of Recco Cobb, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of silence on the House floor.