Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, TrumpCare--a total disaster for America. Here it is by the numbers, per our own nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office: 24 million Americans will lose coverage, with 14 million Americans losing coverage in year one; 15 to 20 percent increases in health insurance premiums in year one; and if you are paying $1,700, you will be paying $14,600 in premium increases if you are a 64-year- old making $26,500 per year.

But where does the money go? $592 billion in tax cuts for the rich. That is where it is going.

The conclusions: TrumpCare robs health care from American working families to give tax cuts to the rich.

So vote ``no'' on TrumpCare to vote ``yes'' on health care for America's working families.

Mr. Chairman, we send our servicemen and -women overseas in harm's way to protect our country because we know that freedom isn't free. So it is fundamental, as we, with such vigor, ask them to go to the battlefield, that we protect them when they are off the battlefield. And it is fundamental that, when they return, they have a world-class hospital system.

Now, today we begin consideration of H.R. 1367, which is exciting because it is a bipartisan bill to improve the VA's authority to hire, train, and retain physicians and other critical staff in the Veterans Health Administration.

Over the last 5 years, we have seen more than 2 million veterans enroll in the VA healthcare system, and we believe--both parties believe that nothing should stand in the way of any veteran having confidence in and access to care and benefits they earned and deserve.

I represent the central Florida area, and we are so honored to have a brand new Orlando VA, in a high-growth area, and the need is great. I was also honored to be able to have an office right across the street from the VA hospital that we just opened up last week, to be in proximity and to help our veterans.

But I can tell you, having met with some of our veterans already, we are looking at 3- to 6-month waits, even in a new facility.

A gentleman, who I will refer to as Mr. Smith so that I don't divulge his personal information, came to me yesterday, and he had issues with a podiatrist. He was not able to see them over the next couple of weeks. And in his goat farm in my district, he is unable to pursue his gainful employment, and we are trying to get him in over the next 2 weeks, but it could be 3 to 4 weeks.

So we need to stand together to restore trust and accountability and fill these positions. And so I applaud both parties, and I am excited for the Veterans' Affairs Committee to take this bold action to recruit and retain the most talented workforce, which is well-needed to provide quality and timely medical care for our Nation's veterans, for those in central Florida, Florida, and beyond.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reinstate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 11(c)(2) safe harbor provision, which allows parties to avoid penalties, by withdrawing or correcting the claims within 14 days from when the alleged violation of rule 11(b) becomes known, anytime up until the end of the discovery period.

This bill would force attorneys to assess their case blindly as it stands. Every attorney knows to assess their case based upon an objective set of facts regarding the situation.

A good attorney would never overpromise a cause of action, but this bill prevents even a fair assessment of a case. A full and accurate analysis of the merits of the case must be done on day one, because this bill requires mandatory sanctions with no grace period. We have tried this already, and it did not work.

This bill will eliminate rule 11(c)(2)'s safe harbor provision, which currently allows the target of a rule 11 motion for sanctions to withdraw or correct the paper claim, defense, contention, or denial that is the subject of the motion for sanctions within 21 days after service.

Between 1938 and 1983, there were only 19 rule 11 filings. In 1983, rule 11 was changed to the standard being proposed by this bill. In the 10 years without this safe harbor provision, nearly 7,000 motions for sanctions were made. A 1989 study showed that roughly one-third of all Federal civil lawsuits involved rule 11 satellite litigation, and approximately one-fourth of all those cases on the docket involved rule 11 actions that did not result in sanctions. Thus, attorneys had a dual job: one to try the case, and the other to try the opposing counsel.

We can't go back to a failed system. The amount of sanction litigation that clogged the system was so extensive that in 1993, a mere 10 years after this failed legal experiment began, a safe harbor provision was established to unclog the system, and it worked. Since then, the amount of rule 11 sanction satellite litigation has come down, and the courts are now better able to focus on the case at hand.

In committee, Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island, recommended the reimplementation of the 21-day safe harbor provision.

Instead of following this commonsense proposal, the committee rejected it by an 18-4 vote. I believe such an important provision needs to be revisited, but with a compromise. That is why I drafted this amendment that offers a 14-day safe harbor provision; and as a measure to protect further abuse, my safe harbor amendment is only available prior to the completion of discovery, yet another attempt to have a compromise here.

The intent for this discovery provision is that an attorney, during discovery, may realize a flaw in their case. Such a revelation should allow an attorney to correct or withdraw their claim without having the fear of having mandatory automatic sanctions imposed on them. Instead, this bill, as written, immediately places sanctions on the mistaken lawyer. This is well-intentioned, but it does not acknowledge the realities of litigation or the legal process.

In the real world, clients can easily misrepresent a situation to their counsel, and the truth won't be known until discovery. This bill will have a stifling effect on the legal community and will lead to denied justice because attorneys will not be willing to take a case unless it is a guaranteed win.

We should take the lessons learned from the 1983 experiment and preserve the safe harbor provision to protect well-intended plaintiffs' attorneys and not stack the deck against those who seek justice.

Mr. Chair, I urge support for my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, there is a sanction in place. You have to remove your claim or your assertion that is in question, and there is the cost of time that any attorney has to put in. But at the end of the day, we have already been down this road and it has failed. Now all we are going to see is more litigation again without the requisite increase in funding to our Federal courts.

And so what we are going to see is anybody who sued--whether you are a plaintiff suing or defendant--is going to now have far more complex, dual-track litigation, and that is going to increase costs on businesses and on individuals who are facing litigation in our Federal courts. I believe we need to keep the lessons learned from the past, and I urge Members to adopt my amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a statement regarding the passage of H.R. 1301, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2017. In the 114th Congress, an amendment was offered and accepted by voice vote to H.R. 5293, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2017, that moved $5 million from the Operation and Maintenance, Defense--Wide account to the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army account's Advanced Concepts and Simulation program. H.R. 1301, maintained a $3 million increase to the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army account's Advanced Concepts and Simulation program.

These funds allow universities to focus on advancing component technologies required for real time modeling and simulation training. A promising use of this program is the development of a more effective protocol for treating combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder for active duty, retired, and discharged personnel and their families. The use of modeling and simulation technology has enabled new innovative and immersive therapies to be developed, which can extend trauma management therapy protocol.

I support the use of modeling and simulation and thank my colleagues for their shared support.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would create an exception to this bill for instances of public health risks, including byproducts of hydraulic fracturing, well stimulation, or any water contamination. Fracking, especially in my home State of Florida, is dangerous, and its effects can be far-reaching. Just last week, a State senate committee voted unanimously to ban the practice in our State, and the bill continues to move through.

Pollution can reach our aquifers that provide drinking water to millions. Sometimes concerned citizens must go to court to stop this. Access to justice is a fundamental American right, and we must protect it. Sometimes in Washington, up is down and right is wrong. This, unfortunately, is the case with the so-called Innocent Party Protection Act.

This bill is incredibly harmful to those injured by corporate wrongdoers. If someone drinks poisoned water as a result of fracking, well stimulation, or general water contamination, this bill will make it harder for them to get justice for their injuries. By restricting access to State courts, the courts that are closest to the people, this bill would deny justice.

The bill will deny plaintiffs their right to choose a State court forum for their claims and will instead allow defendant companies that negligently pollute water to drag a case out, which will drive up costs and increase burdens for plaintiffs by removing it to Federal court.

Then, once a case is in Federal court, instead of litigating over the merits of the case, the courts will argue over the various requirements that this bill establishes. Placing a higher threshold that a plaintiff must satisfy to get the case sent back to State court is unnecessary and unduly burdensome.

The amendment I am offering would restore access to justice. It would allow people whose water has been contaminated by fracking and related activities to seek damages from corporate wrongdoers.

This amendment isn't just a hypothetical exercise. Here in my hand I hold 18 cases involving fracking. They are 18 cases where fracking led to injury. In 10 of these cases, plaintiffs sued in State court, raising State claims, yet defendants removed the case to Federal court, only to have the Federal court remand the cases back to the State due to lack of diversity jurisdiction.

Thus, I hold here 10 cases where a remand back to State court would be denied under this bill. If this bill had been enacted, I hold here 10 cases that would have been denied justice. Four of these 18 hydraulic fracturing cases are still pending. Will we deny justice for these four cases?

For these plaintiffs and for future plaintiffs, I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment and safeguard justice to all who drink water.

Mr. Chair, I urge support of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, water is not arbitrary. The right to clean water is not arbitrary. It is essential. Just ask the plaintiffs in these cases. Just ask the people of Flint. Just ask victims of fracking across our Nation, which is why we in Florida are looking to ban the practice.

So this isn't just some arbitrary area. This is an essential area that is affecting issues right now throughout the Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike section 1721 of this Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017. The irony of section 1721 is it unfairly subjects class action plaintiffs to an inevitable deluge of prolonged delay.

A stay of discovery means no depositions. It means injured people will not get essential documents. It means victims will not be entitled to the names of necessary witnesses and more as long as a motion that may dispose of the case is pending. There is nothing to prevent a corporation from filing motion after motion to obstruct a victim's path to justice.

Numerous consumer, civil rights, environmental, labor, and other public interest groups oppose this bill because it builds in an automatic stay of discovery in the district court whenever an alleged wrongdoer files any one of a list of motions, including common motions like a motion to strike, a motion to dismiss, and a motion to dispose of class action allegations. There will be no end to the filing of these motions. This is an invitation for gamesmanship and delay and will deprive judges of the ability to properly manage their cases.

The framers of the bill want you to believe that plaintiffs are greedy, undeserving people who want to hinder small business. This could not be further from the truth. If there are big settlements, it is because the damage to the victims was heinous.

Is there any doubt that huge corporations would file motion after motion to obstruct these victims from getting the facts they need?

Class actions are critical for enforcement of laws prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing, education, and access to public areas and services.

At the end of the day, if we are trying to reduce litigation, why have this glaring loophole where someone continues to file motions to stop ordinary discovery from going forward?

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, even if we included motions to dismiss in the stay, which are at the beginning of the case because they are dispositive motions, there are still motions to strike that are left in this bill.

After surviving a motion to dismiss, motions to strike are regularly filed. Anybody who has had any time in the courtroom know they can be filed over and over and over again. There is no limit of them under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So simply by filing motion to strike after motion to strike, a defendant can continue to delay justice; and justice delayed is justice denied.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, last night our Republican colleagues finally revealed their secret healthcare bill, and it is clear that TrumpCare doesn't care. Here are the top five reasons why:

Number one, TrumpCare cuts Medicaid. It creates block grants to States that will lead to less care, including forcing seniors out of nursing homes and reducing health care for the poor.

Number two, TrumpCare eliminates healthcare subsidies. In its place, it creates substandard tax cuts that will ensure millions of Americans can no longer afford health insurance.

Number three, TrumpCare favors the rich. It provides a tax giveaway for the rich, while leaving the middle class with less access to care.

Number four, TrumpCare hurts our hospitals. It kicks people off of insurance, guaranteeing hospitals, employer plans, and taxpayers will ultimately foot the bill.

Number five, TrumpCare defunds Planned Parenthood. This will leave millions of women without health care.

In summary, TrumpCare doesn't care, and it won't work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to help smash Zika and other vector-borne diseases.

It is my privilege to reintroduce the bipartisan Strengthening Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act, or SMASH Act. H.R. 1310 has over 14 cosponsors already, both Democrats and Republicans, coming together to tackle this great challenge.

As we saw last year, in Florida, Puerto Rico, across Latin America, and beyond, mosquito-borne diseases are constantly evolving and can quickly have new and devastating consequences. We thought we knew Zika, but then it changed. So we have to stay a step ahead.

That is what the SMASH Act does. It keeps us ahead of perennial threats like Zika, West Nile, and other diseases by expanding programs for mosquito-borne and vector-borne disease surveillance and control.

Investing and fighting all these diseases together will protect the health of countless Americans and save us money down the road.

The scientists and public health experts at the Centers for Disease Control in my home State know the tools they need. Colleagues, let's get together and give it to them.

Mr. Speaker, this is a simple issue: Do we want to make workplaces safer? Do we want to keep workers from getting hurt on the job? Of course, we do.

In order to protect workers, we need good data on where injuries are happening so we can work with employers to stop them.

Sometimes the other side says commonsense protections like this are too expensive or they kill jobs or they stifle innovation. None of those is even remotely true here.

The protections this resolution would take away cost nothing. Responsible employers are already keeping these records. That is why the coalition opposing this resolution includes workers rights advocates and a whole lot of other folks like public health practitioners. These are not political people. These are just people who work every day to help Americans lead safe, healthy lives.

This is not about President Obama or power grabs. It is about protecting the American worker.

The 6-month period is a setup which will lead to less enforcement. Rather than eliminating the rule, let's codify it and use the information we collect to continue to evolve our laws to protect workers.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and congratulate California's new attorney general, my friend, Xavier Becerra.

As many of you know, former Congressman Becerra was the Congressional Hispanic Caucus chair from 1997 to 1999. He was our Democratic Caucus vice chair from 2009 to 2013, and also our Democratic Caucus chair for the 114th Congress.

We all know that Attorney General Becerra was a staunch defender of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, and other support for people in need. He was also a supporter for our DREAMers, for DACA, and for women's rights. He was also a mentor to me. Aspiring new Members who came here looked to him for advice, especially in their first couple weeks here.

I want to thank Attorney General Becerra for coming to a roundtable in my district over in Polk County to visit with so many of our agricultural workers in our community and so many DREAMers. It is so critical for agriculture, for our farmers, and for rural America that we continue to make sure that agriculture continues to be strong in our Nation. As a Californian, he also even starred in Stephen Colbert's ``Better Know a District.''

So I just want to thank, once again, Congressman Xavier Becerra for being an American Member of Congress, someone who looked out for all of us and defended our values.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 93.

Mr. Speaker, here in America, we are changing the world with our ingenuity and technological advances.

It is our creative and innovative spirit that allows us to continue to be a leader in the world economy and raise the quality of life of the human race. We know that jobs of the present and the future will require many new students and retrained workers to pursue STEM degrees--those in science, technology, engineering, and math.

While many politicians have talked a good game about encouraging students to pursue these degrees, it is time to put our money where our mouth is. Today I introduced the ASPIRE Act, H.R. 926, the American Science Principal and Interest Reduction and Employment Act. This act would grant a 25 percent reduction in student loans for any student who graduates with a STEM major.

According to the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, one million new STEM jobs are projected to come online between 2012 to 2022, for a total of 9 million, 13 percent growth over the decade. This means we must act now to meet these needs, and I encourage all of you to cosponsor this important legislation.

It is time to create real incentives to encourage our students to aspire to new heights and create the jobs of tomorrow today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today wearing this pink scarf in solidarity with so many millions of Americans who rose up this past Saturday, whether it be in D.C., on the West Coast, East Coast, so many cities in the Midwest, as well as those around the world.

It is interesting. My wife and I awoke to chanting of thousands of people. It almost felt like the protest was in our living room. And when we got out on the balcony, we saw thousands of people who were wearing pink hats and carrying signs and so boisterous with hope.

Amanda and I decided we would go down to join them. When we got to the street, it was an amazing scene, with the Capitol ahead of us, and so many folks just gathered together--like-minded--with a message of respect and of resistance. As we tried to get towards the stage as we got to The Mall and about a mile away, we couldn't even get past a wall of bodies of so many people who were there to cheer on the message of so many great speakers.

But we found our way through, eventually, and made it onto the stage. And what I can tell you was just sheerly unimaginable: 17 blocks of Americans, of all States, of all creeds, of all colors, of all backgrounds, who were there with a message.

We had some wonderful speakers that day. We had folks from labor. We had folks from criminal justice reform groups. We had folks who were fighting for reproductive rights. We had many celebrities there, of course, and we also had folks who cared about everything from our economy to agriculture, to equality, to anything you could imagine, so many values that we fought for over the last 8 years.

There is a sense that there is going to be common ground among many of these issues as we go forward.

American jobs, obviously, everybody in this Chamber wants to make sure that we protect Americans and make sure that we have employment for everyone.

We are also going to fight for common infrastructure among all of the 50 States, and that is something that we saw in the Senate the other day that was presented.

We may also have some common ground on tax reform, particularly if it means bringing back from overseas a lot of corporate money that certainly would be important to go through the same process as profits derived here.

But there is certainly, as we saw at the speech of so many people, there will be areas of resistance.

We care about workers' rights. We care about making sure that we have a Department of Labor that will stand on the side of working American families.

We care about having an inclusive economy, one that will respect a higher minimum wage; one that will fight for more high-tech, higher paying jobs; one that will fight for our manufacturing base; one that will be based upon tax cuts for the middle class, tax cuts for folks who are working, everyday Americans, as opposed to trickle-down economics and tax cuts for the wealthy.

It was also about health care and about saving ACA or, at the very least, replacing it with something that is still going to make sure that we don't have 18 million Americans, according to the CBO, losing their health insurance.

It is about making sure that we have a Medicare system that is not going to be block-rented out to the States as a creative way to cut Medicaid for our seniors and for our poor.

It is also about protecting Medicare for our seniors who paid into it through their whole lives and making sure it is not privatized, as well as Social Security, making sure that not only those who are receiving it today, but up to those who are millennials and beyond, will be able to receive that benefit. We all paid into it, and we all expect it to be there.

But it was also about equality. Many of our LGBT community are worried: Are these executive orders in place that are protecting equality in our Federal workforce going to be continued? Is this advance, this progression, this success in the Supreme Court and in so many other areas of society to have equality for the LGBT community going to be continued onward? There is a big doubt about that.

It is also about women's reproductive rights. We saw so many, including Planned Parenthood and so many other groups, who fought not only to protect health care, but to protect women's choice, stand up and say that they don't want to revert back, that they don't want our society to revert back on equal rights for women.

And we saw that today with the reinstatement of the gag rule across the Nation and the world, to encourage nations to prohibit reproductive rights, prohibit the ability to have birth control, prohibit the right to be able to exercise the right to choose.

So many of my fellow Hispanics are worried about immigration. A simple executive order can assure that our DREAMers go from law-abiding students and members of our military and those who are applying in part of this program to being undocumented and being potentially even hunted down by their government. It is about long-term comprehensive immigration policy and reform.

So many from my district, whether it be those who are also Hispanic or those who are from the Caribbean in my district, they care deeply about this. So does our agriculture community, so does our tourism community, so does business in general. These are going to be things that people are going to stand up for, and they certainly stood up for them during the march, along with women's rights, along with equality in general.

Then there is the concern about climate change and how there was a push forward over the last 8 years and there will be an attempt to backtrack.

I don't have to tell everybody, from the way the weather has been working over the last 10 to 15 to 20 years, that this is going to be one of the greatest challenges of our time--and for our kids and for our grandchildren. We do have to do it the right way, but we stood up to make sure that everybody knows we cannot go back.

In addition, Dodd-Frank and financial reform, so critical to preventing another Great Recession. Many of us remember in 2008, in October, when President George W. Bush got on TV and told everyone that we were in for a Great Recession and one that President Obama described as the greatest recession since the Great Depression. There will be an attempt to chip back on those reforms and an attempt to try to get away from the lessons we learned to try to prevent another global meltdown.

And of course criminal justice was critical. So many of our youth, so many Hispanics, so many African Americans, so many people who find themselves in greater proportion than other Americans in jail from a system that sometimes discriminates against them.

All of these folks stood up, millions of Americans stood up, and, yes, we had hats and, yes, we had pink scarfs and, yes, we spoke about the progress that we made in the fight. But in one word, this was about respect. It was about respect for all women across the Nation, all minorities across the Nation, regardless of ethnicity and religion, all Americans, all of our Americans with disabilities, all of our working class folks who are fighting every day to try to make a good living.

The message is clear. The message is clear from the millions of Americans who marched on Saturday that we will be watching, that we will speak up when we see things we disagree with, and when we have to, we will resist.

Those who marched on Saturday, we welcome you to the resistance, and we thank you for your support. It is going to be a long 2 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, here is my 1-minute breakdown on why I oppose repealing ObamaCare without replacement:

First, this law protects all Americans with preexisting conditions; second, it keeps all young adults on their parents' insurance until age 26; third, it protects all Americans from bankruptcy if they get sick by removing lifetime caps.

Before the act, millions of Americans were simply kicked off their insurance when these problems arose. We Democrats support keeping these protections for all Americans, and the Republicans want to repeal them. We support improving the act, and the Republicans want to eliminate it.

While many have stoked fear and spread false information for political gain, it is clear that repeal without replacement equals disaster. It will eliminate these protections for all Americans, create chaos for working families, and send our country into another recession.

It is clear we need to improve the act rather than repeal it. It is time to do the right thing for all Floridians and for all Americans.

``But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the Members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty- one years of age in such State.''