Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Yes, the previous speaker is right. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, but the Republican Party in both houses has been doing its best to destroy healthcare for the American people in the last couple of months. This is just a different piece of the same plot. Bob Wise didn't always have the best judgment.

This cruel legislation does exactly the opposite of what its title states. It would place an artifical and very low cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases, and it would lock that figure into law without adjustment for inflation, which would reduce its value almost to zero over time.

By capping damages, this bill would ensure that many victims of medical malpractice will not be fairly compensated for their injuries. Many other victims may be unable even to file a case in the first place because they will be unable to retain a lawyer. That is because medical malpractice cases often require significant upfront costs, as high as $100,000 on average, and few attorneys will take a case if the cap on damages means that there will be no reasonable likelihood of recouping their costs.

This bill's cap on noneconomic damages is particularly insidious because of its discriminatory effect on many women, children, and seniors. They often have little or no lost wages to calculate, and, therefore, they may recover very little in the form of economic damages. But they may still have suffered a real and lasting injury that deserves compensation. This includes women who may have chosen to stay home and raise a family, children who have yet to begin their careers, or seniors who have retired and left the workforce.

Why should they be punished under this bill and get very little compensation for a lost limb or something else?

The law recognizes that pain and suffering, and other noneconomic damages, are worthy of compensation, but supporters of this bill think Congress, not juries, should decide what those injuries are worth, and it is shamefully little.

This legislation is based on the California law that includes a cap of $250,000 for noneconomic damages, but it was enacted back in 1975. Whether or not that was an appropriate figure 40 years ago, in today's dollars, it is clearly inadequate.

After adjusting for inflation, the cap would need to be approximately $1.128 million to be the same as the $250,000 cap was when it was enacted.

Thinking of it another way, that $250,000 cap is now worth just over $56,000, nearly a fifth as much.

Even assuming that $250,000 is the appropriate figure today, fairness demands that this cap be indexed for inflation going forward so that we do not see a similar erosion of value. But this bill locks in an already low cap and lets it dwindle away until it is worth essentially zero.

I offered an amendment to adjust the cap to reflect 40 years of inflation, and to index it going forward, but the Rules Committee did not make it in order. Instead, we are forced to vote on a bill that, over time, will consider pain and suffering to be worth nothing at all.

This bill would not reduce the cost of malpractice insurance, it would not drive bad doctors out of practice, and it would certainly not protect patients.

What it would do is give a free ride to a healthcare provider, or a healthcare entity, that seriously harms a patient or a consumer.

I urge my colleagues to reject this unfair and unnecessary legislation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

In the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, thousands of New Yorkers and other Americans learned that they were ineligible for FEMA assistance because of the type of home in which they lived. Families who lived in condos were eligible for assistance for their individual units, but could not get any assistance to repair ground floor entryways, boilers, or other common areas. Those who lived in cooperative housing, or co- ops, were ineligible for any disaster assistance to repair the walls or floors of their units, let alone their common areas.

This was not a small problem for my constituents. In the storm surge area in New York, nearly 20 percent of housing units are in co-op buildings and an additional 8 percent are in condominiums.

Seniors in high-rise condo buildings were able to get assistance to repair their floors and repaint their floors, but nothing to fix the elevators they needed to reach their units. Families in co-ops could replace their furnishings and make some repairs, but the halls of the buildings remained covered with mold and uninhabitable. Almost every district in the country has condos, and homeowners in these condo communities will continue to face the same terrible realization that FEMA can give them no help in the wake of new disasters.

Community associations, or common interest communities, around the country have experienced similar roadblocks when they seek FEMA disaster assistance. Many of these associations own and operate their own roads, canals, bridges, and water systems. In the aftermath of a disaster, however, they are not eligible for FEMA assistance for basic essential government services, such as removing trees and debris from communal roads. Residents cannot get out of their neighborhoods and emergency vehicles cannot get in.

This bill would address these eligibility problems in two ways:

First, it would direct FEMA to provide common interest communities with technical assistance to identify options for public assistance eligibility. Many of these communities are unaware that they could already be eligible for assistance if, prior to a disaster, they entered into agreements with their local governments on issues like debris removal.

Second, my colleagues and I have communicated several times with FEMA about the issue of condo and co-op eligibility for disaster assistance. FEMA has studied this issue for several years, and this bill directs FEMA to take the next step in this process by providing the House and Senate committees legislative proposals to address these issues and to make condos and co-ops eligible for disaster assistance.

Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for bringing this bipartisan legislation to the floor today, and I thank Mr. Sanford and Mr. Engel for cosponsoring it.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commend Kate Clinton, who has, for 36 years, offered unique and original insights as a political humorist and served as an important leader in the fight for justice and equality. She has made millions of people laugh and see truth in new ways, and in doing so, has changed hearts and minds so as to strongly impact America's long fight to secure equal rights for all of our citizens.

Kate Clinton's books, columns, essays, video blogs, and performances have affirmed the lives of LGBT people and all who have been marginalized, and her work has shed light on all manner of injustice. As she has invited people to see things differently, particularly through her special brand of gentle but pointed humor, she has provided joy and recognition to millions of people in her audience and beyond. Her commitment to equality and social justice is unwavering, not only as seen through her comedic craft, but also through her other important activist work as a feminist, lesbian, and American artist who understands that true equality can only exist when we all enjoy it.

For nearly four decades, Kate Clinton has built and used her unique platform to advance progressive causes--most notably women's rights and LGBT equality--and has used humor to build critical bridges of understanding between communities.

During this time when voices for progress are threatened, and when humor is sometimes the only salve for the weariness felt by so many Americans who are fighting a better future for our country and world, the work of artists like Kate Clinton is vital to building solidarity; providing inspiration, insight and levity; and generating courage to continue the arduous work of pursuing justice.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Kate Clinton for her many accomplishments, and wishing her continued success in making us laugh, and sustaining our resolve, in the years to come.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1393. This bill represents a major assault on the sovereignty of the States, and it does particular damage to my home State of New York, depriving it of more than $100 million a year of its own tax revenue, which hardly fits the de minimis description by the gentleman from Virginia.

The Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act would prohibit States from collecting income tax from an individual unless the person works more than 30 days in that State in a calendar year.

Simplifying and harmonizing the rules on tax collection across the country is a worthy goal, and I support efforts by the States and the Multistate Tax Commission to resolve the issue. New York has been an active participant in these negotiations and wants to reach a fair solution. But imposing a solution on States, and one that would cause a large financial burden on particular States, is clearly not the answer.

The power to tax is a key index of sovereignty; yet this legislation would prohibit States from taxing activity solely within their own borders except as prescribed in the bill. I think that is constitutionally dubious. Although I take a broad view generally of the Commerce Clause, I doubt it extends to authorizing Federal regulation of a State's ability to tax a person doing business within that State's own borders.

This bill is also deeply troubling as a matter of policy. Under this legislation, if you work in a State of which you are not a resident for fewer than 30 days, your income will not be subject to tax by that State. That amounts to 6 weeks of 5-day workweeks. While a de minimis exception may make some sense, I hardly think that 6 weeks is de minimis.

Ultimately, the threshold for taxation is for each State to decide for itself. If I were still a member of the New York Legislature, I would consider the political and economic merits of taxing out-of-State business activity, and I would vote based on what I thought was best for my State. But by what right does Congress step in to tell New York that it must forego more than $100 million a year based on economic activity that occurs entirely within its borders?

In some States, the 30-day threshold may not have a great fiscal impact. But New York State, for example, is home to New York City, the Nation's center of commerce, which also sits right across the river from New Jersey and a very short distance from Connecticut. This makes New York a major destination for out-of-State business travelers and makes it, by far, the hardest hit State under this bill. According to the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, losses could be up to $120 million a year for New York.

This enormous financial loss would come at a time that the President and the Republican Congress are proposing to shift significant responsibilities to the States, while simultaneously slashing Federal assistance. If we further deprive New York of $120 million each year, and limit its ability to tax activity occurring within its own borders, vital services like education, law enforcement, and healthcare could all be on the chopping block.

During consideration of H.R. 1393 in the Judiciary Committee, I offered two amendments that would have mitigated its impact. The first would have reduced the bill's 30-day threshold to a far more reasonable 14 days, which is still almost 3 weeks of work without being subject to taxation. The other would have added highly paid individuals to the bill's list of exemptions, which would help avoid loopholes that could allow wealthy people to escape millions of dollars of taxation.

Had my amendments been accepted, the expected impact on New York would have been reduced by as much as $85 million a year. While still causing a significant drain on resources, these amendments would have gone a long way to making the bill fairer, while still achieving its underlying goals. Unfortunately, these amendments were defeated, and, therefore, I must oppose the bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to quote from a letter from the president of the Federation of Tax Administrators and commissioner of the Oklahoma Tax Commission regarding this bill. She writes:

This bill breaches the core of the relationship between the

Federal Government and State governments, a relationship that

is fundamentally important to the voters of Virginia and of

Michigan. It is a clear example of the Federal Government

crossing a line that is seldom breached and, in this

instance, should not be. The attached resolution from the

State tax agencies, all of them, offers in detail to explain

the State's positions against the mobile workforce.

Here are the three most compelling facts:

One, States have in place a combination of laws, rules, and

compliance standards that effectively eliminate an unfair

outcome when it comes to recordkeeping and taxation of wages

earned in a State by a nonresident;

Two, these approaches, which include model legislation

developed by the Multistate Tax Commission, take into account

information that is available to employers and de minimis

activities; and

Three, H.R. 1393 goes beyond what is necessary to ensure

fair outcomes and a reasonable reporting burden, in

particular, because the bill takes away the states' rights to

require proper wage reporting and withholding even when the

employer already has the information to easily do so. It

opens up opportunities for tax avoidance.

In closing, let me note that this legislation would not just harm New York and not just to a de minimis amount--$100 million to $120 million is hardly de minimis--but it would also have a similar effect on other States. That is why this bill is opposed by a broad coalition of labor and tax organizations, including the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, SEIU, the International Union of Police Associations, Federation of Tax Administrators, Multistate Tax Commission, and many others.

Whether or not your State is hurt financially by this bill, however, all Members should be concerned by legislation that so brazenly strips from a State one of the fundamental hallmarks of sovereignty: the ability to tax economic activity that occurs entirely within its own borders. If we can target New York and other States with this bill, what is to say we won't come after your State next.

I must also add that this bill is one in a series of bills that we have seen over the last few years that chip away at the revenue-raising and taxing ability of the States. Especially as the current majority and the current President seek to shift more responsibilities to the States and away from the Federal Government, we should not be depriving the States of their ability to raise revenues as they see fit within their own sovereignty.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation which would expand the death penalty by adding a 17th aggravating factor--killing or targeting a police officer, probation officer, or firefighter--to the list of 16 aggravating factors already on the books.

Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for our Nation's public servants, our police, our firefighters, the men and women of the Armed Forces, our teachers, and our other government employees. They serve our Nation out of a sense of duty to our country and for the honor and privilege of helping others.

But I cannot, in good conscience, support the bill we have before us simply because its purported goal, though certainly not its result, is to protect our public safety officers. The legislation is unnecessary and duplicative since there are already extensive penalties at both the State and local level for the murder of law enforcement officers.

As we know, numerous studies have demonstrated that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to crime in any event. Numerous studies have shown that what enhances the deterrent is certainty and swiftness of punishment, not severity of punishment. Therefore, adding the death penalty as a punishment is unlikely to prevent future violence against our police and our firefighters.

In addition, I believe the bill is counterproductive to our goal of improving law enforcement and community relations.

If you oppose the death penalty, as I do, because, in many cases, there is no appropriate access to counsel, which we know; because the death penalty has racial disparities in its application, which we know; and because, as we have seen over the past many years, there is a strong possibility of a wrongful conviction leading to the untenable situation of putting an innocent person to death, and we know that this has been done in my State and others, then you should oppose this bill and any bill expanding application of the death penalty which will result in innocent men and women being executed. This bill does nothing to correct any of these issues.

If you oppose the death penalty on moral and religious grounds, perhaps because you believe that all life is sacred and that the State should not sanction death as a punishment, then you should oppose this bill as well.

There is another fundamental objection to this bill. It is one thing to impose a death penalty for murder, bad as that is, or for any crime; it is another thing to impose a death penalty for attempted murder. This bill imposes the death penalty for attempted murder of police, firefighters, and probation officers.

I am not aware that we have in the law, anywhere, a death penalty for an attempted crime; and here, we are establishing a death penalty for an attempt, an unsuccessful attempt. The bill imposes the death penalty on persons who ``killed or attempted to kill.''

So under this bill, if you aimed the gun, even if you did not hit the person or injure him in any way, the death penalty would be imposed. This is a fundamental change in the law for which we are given no reason at all.

The law has always recognized a distinction between a terrible act and an attempted terrible act. The attempted terrible act certainly should be punished, but not as severely as the accomplishment of the terrible act. Here, we are establishing a death penalty for an unsuccessful attempt to commit the crime, and no reason is given for this fundamental break with our legal traditions.

So, for all these reasons--this bill is unnecessary, duplicative, ineffective, counterproductive, and where it is new, excessive--I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I hadn't planned to speak again, but a gentleman on the other side was just completely incorrect in what he said, and I have the bill here.

The bill does establish the death penalty for attempted killing, and here is

the language. The bill is very short. It says:

The law is amended by inserting after paragraph 16 the

following:

Paragraph 17, killing or targeting of law enforcement

officer.

A. The defendant killed or attempted to kill, in the

circumstance described in subparagraph B, a police officer,

etc.

And B says:

The circumstance referred to in subparagraph A is that the

person was killed or targeted while he was engaged in

performance of his duties, basically.

So this implies the death penalty lists, as an additional aggravating factor for the death penalty, someone who killed or attempted to kill a police officer, a probation officer, a firefighter while they were engaged in their duties--killed or attempted to kill. That is what it means when it says killing or targeting. Targeting means attempting to kill.

It is very clear. You cannot misread this. Maybe the drafter made a mistake, but it is very clear. This applies the death penalty to someone who kills or attempts to kill. It is the first instance I know of in the entire corpus of American law where an attempted murder, attempted killing, an attempted anything is given the death penalty.

Mr. Speaker, I must again correct the gentleman on the other side. The underlying title 18 is the criminal code. It lists a series of crimes and a series of penalties, and then you have a list of aggravating factors, which make the death penalty mandatory if any of them are present. There are 16 aggravating factors. This is number 17 and adds an aggravating factor; and when this aggravating factor is present, the death penalty is mandatory.

Among the things this aggravating factor says, is ``attempt.'' So it is the first death penalty--for that matter, it is the first death penalty, mandatory or not, for an attempt, as opposed to an actual killing. Even if it weren't mandatory, we should not have a death penalty for an attempt. You should have a severe penalty, but a death penalty should be reserved for actual murder and such crimes, not for an attempt. Attempt is always punished more leniently than the actual accomplishment of the heinous act.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have rushed this bill to the floor before they even had a chance to print the text, let alone get a CBO score. They are pushing this bill through without any analysis so that the American people won't know how terrible this bill really is-- how many millions of people will lose their health insurance, how much premiums will skyrocket for those with pre-existing conditions, how little money they will actually save. And all to score empty political points or to impress Donald Trump, a man who has demonstrated again and again that he does not know or care what is in this bill, and just wants to ``win.''

This bill is the same terrible legislation the Republicans failed to pass in March, but with amendments to make it even more cruel to the American people. The bill will kick 24 million people off their health insurance and eliminate employer-provided coverage for seven million people. The bill creates an ``age tax'' that would allow insurers to charge older Americans five times as much as a younger person for the same plan. The bill raises premiums 30 percent for people who allow their insurance to lapse for any reason. The bill cuts $880 billion out of Medicad and forces states to ration care to the millions of families and children who rely on it, in clear violation of Donald Trump's campaign pledge. The bill gives the wealthiest Americans a trillion dollar tax cut and cuts taxes on drug companies and health insurance companies that pay their CEOs more than $500,000.

But that bill wasn't terrible enough to get the votes of the right wing of the Republicans in the House, so the Republicans made it even crueler. The amendments the Republicans will add today allow states to waive the essential health benefits requirements for insurance plans, meaning you could lose coverage for services as basic as hospital stays, prescription drugs, or doctor visits. States will also be able to waive the guarantee against discrimination against people with pre- existing conditions. Of course, the Republicans are saying that insurance companies cannot deny people coverage, but insurers will be able to charge people whatever they want. The Center for American Progress estimates that premiums could increase by over $36,000 per year for people diagnosed with breast cancer. Pregnancy will result in a $17,000 increase in premiums. Asthma, a $4,000 increase. The high risk pools Republicans are touting will do nothing to protect people by sequestering the sickest Americans in pools and then drastically underfunding them. The Republicans are hiding from these numbers behind the so-called Upton Amendment, which provides a paltry $8 billion to cover some extra costs for those with pre-existing conditions. But even the conservative Mercatus Foundation found that to be less than a pittance compared with the skyrocketing costs for those who need it.

Every day, we are finding new egregious consequences of this legislation. Last night, the New York Times reported that passing this bill will cut special education programs to over 2500 students with disabilities. Yesterday, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities reported that the tax credits Republicans are proposing in this bill will be totally unusable in states like California and New York because of state laws that require coverage of abortion. Reports have come out that sexual assault and domestic violence would, once again, be considered a pre-existing condition, making insurance unaffordable for survivors. The Wall Street Journal reported that the bill could allow employers to reinstate lifetime caps and eliminate out-of-pocket caps for their employees' insurance plans, leaving the 159 million Americans who get insurance through their employer with no insurance coverage when they need it most. That's right--if you think that because you don't buy insurance on the exchange and therefore don't have to worry about this bill, you're wrong. I have no doubt that in the time it takes to read this statement another round of articles and reports will come out finding even more abhorrent consequences of this contemptible piece of legislation.

So I ask my Republican colleagues--who are you passing this bill for? Are you so out of touch with the lives of real Americans that you no longer understand what it means to struggle to pay your medical bills? Have you traveled so far from the values you claim to uphold that you are willing to force parents to watch their children die of curable diseases because they have reached the lifetime cap on covered costs that your bill reinstates, and they can no longer afford to pay for treatment? Are you willing to gamble away their lives and the lives of their children just to say you passed a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act?

Shame on any member who votes for this cowardly, cruel bill and tries to sell this bill to their constituents as a win for the American people. Shame on this House for even considering a bill that could leave the most vulnerable in our country--children born with disabilities, women fleeing domestic violence, older Americans too sick to buy insurance but too young to enroll in Medicare--at the mercy of insurance companies and fate. Shame on you for playing political games with people's lives.

Mr. Speaker, for 7 years, Republicans have talked about repealing the Affordable Care Act and replacing it with something better.

And then in the first 100 days of the Trump administration, Republicans offered a plan that would have raised premiums, raised deductibles, and taken away health care from 24 million Americans.

The Trump-Republican proposal was a cowardly cynical effort to lower taxes on the richest Americans, strip away insurance protections from hardworking families, and to dismantle Medicare and Medicaid. Their plan would make Americans pay more to get much less.

When this horrible deal failed, President Trump did what he does best: he lashed out. He lashed out at the American people, threatening to stop critical cost-sharing health insurance subsidies that ensure the sickest and some of the poorest Americans can afford health care.

Health care, Mr. Speaker, is not a game. It is a matter of life and death for millions of Americans. On health care and every other issue, President Trump's first 100 days have been nothing more than a string of broken promises, empty words, and extravagant lies.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the underlying legislation, which I view as a great step forward.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard about the misdeeds alleged of the prior Register of Copyrights, and we have heard what a wonderful Librarian Carla Hayden is; and I agree, she is a wonderful Librarian. But this bill is not about individuals. It is not about whether the last Register was a good or bad Register. It is not about whether she knew what she was doing on modernization or not. This bill is an institutional bill. This bill is against politicizing. This bill is for strengthening and enhancing the stature of the Office of Register of Copyrights.

The committee held 4 years of hearings on the Copyright Act. There are many contentious issues that we will be bringing to the floor over the next couple of years on that. This was not one of them. This issue had broad support.

Everybody agrees that the Office of Copyright must be modernized. What this bill does is to take it and give it a little more independence from the Library of Congress. The Librarian of Congress is an interested stakeholder. There are many stakeholders in Copyright. Librarians are stakeholders, tech people are stakeholders, content creators, movie studios, authors, and editors--there are lots of different stakeholders. No stakeholder should be in a controlling position.

The Librarian of Congress is in a controlling position, and there is a consensus that that ought to be reduced. I, personally, and a lot of other people think the Register's Office should be taken out of the Library entirely. But this bill is a compromise. It doesn't do that. It simply enhances the stature of the Copyright Office by making this a Presidentially appointed office for a 10-year term.

You talk about politicizing? Right now, President Trump could, if he wished, fire the Librarian tomorrow. The Librarian serves at his pleasure, and the Register of Copyrights serves at her pleasure. So the President totally controls the Librarian of Congress and the Register at any time.

This bill would say that the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, would appoint the Register who would have a 10-year term. That gives her or him more independence, obviously, and it enables them to undertake the proper modernization.

One of the problems we saw was that the modernization requirements of the Library of Congress are very different from the modernization requirements of the Copyright Office, and one seemed to take precedence over the other, which is not surprising when one is subject to the other and part of it.

So this bill would increase the stature of the Copyright Office. It would make it less political by giving the incumbent a 10-year tenure during good behavior. There are powerful interests who have an interest, and they would be one step further removed because of the 10- year tenure.

This is a bill that has broad bipartisan support. Almost every interest group that deals with the Copyright Office is in favor of this, from the authors to the directors, to the songwriters, to the motion picture people, you name it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, but I am opposed to the rule.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1695. This legislation would strengthen the Copyright Office and make it more accountable to Congress by turning the Register of Copyrights into a Senate-confirmed position.

Since 2013, under the bipartisan leadership of Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers, the Judiciary Committee has undertaken a comprehensive review of the copyright laws and the Copyright Office. Over the course of 20 hearings with 100 witnesses, as well as listening sessions across the country, and individual meetings with a broad range of stakeholders, we have heard one consistent message: that the Copyright Office must be modernized to meet the needs of the public in the copyright community.

This bill is an important first step in that process, and it is appropriate that we consider it today on World Intellectual Property Day when we recognize the tremendous contribution that intellectual property laws, including copyright, make to our economy and to our creativity. But maintaining this vibrant copyright ecosystem depends on having an effective Copyright Office to oversee it. Throughout the copyright review process, it became evident that the current structure of the Office has hindered its ability to serve the public and the copyright community effectively.

For historical reasons, the Copyright Office is located in the Library of Congress, and the Register of Copyrights answers solely to the Librarian of Congress. As an institutional matter, this creates a conflict. Libraries are a key stakeholder in the copyright community, but they are one among many stakeholders, each with different priorities and interests. To place the Copyright Office in the hands of one interested party does a disservice to the copyright system it is charged with administering.

H.R. 1695 would remedy this problem by making the Register of Copyrights a Presidential appointment subject to Senate confirmation. It would establish an open and transparent process for publicly vetting a nominee for Register and would allow the broad range

of copyright stakeholders to provide input through their elected Representatives.

It would also strengthen the ability of Congress to provide meaningful oversight of the Copyright Office, and, by establishing a 10-year term for the Register, it would insulate the Office from any improper political influence.

It is particularly important that Congress have the final say in who serves as Register because, by statute, the Copyright Office serves as an expert adviser to Congress on copyright matters. The Office has played an invaluable role throughout the Judiciary Committee's copyright review process, and this bill would ensure that we continue to rely on independent advice from the Register as we make further reforms to the copyright laws.

Under current law, the selection of the Register is left entirely to the Librarian. And since the Librarian serves at the pleasure of the President, it is really the President who can dictate the choice of Register if the Librarian wishes to keep her job. And the Register can be dismissed at any time by the Librarian, possibly at the direction of the President.

This bill serves as an important check on the President's power by removing his unfettered ability to name a Register, by requiring Senate confirmation of the position instead, and by giving the Register a fixed 10-year term.

The role of Congress is further solidified by an important amendment that was added during the committee's markup by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee). Under her amendment, which is now in the bill, a panel of congressional leaders, along with the Librarian of Congress, would develop a list of candidates from which the President would choose a nominee. This strengthens congressional input and preserves an important role in the process for the Librarian as well.

The Jackson Lee amendment strikes a good balance between respecting the roles of Congress, the President, and the Librarian in selecting the Register, and I appreciate the contribution she made to the bill.

The Copyright Office serves a vital function, but its current structure does not reflect the importance of the Office. H.R. 1695 elevates the status and the stature of the Register, and treats the position like other Federal officials with similarly significant responsibilities--like the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This would make the Copyright Office more responsive and accountable to Congress, and it is the first step to its providing the Office with the flexibility and independence it needs to serve all members of the copyright community effectively.

This legislation is independent of any evaluation of the fitness of the current Librarian--who is excellent in my opinion--of the fitness of the prior Register. This legislation has been developed over a period of years, and the importance is institutional, not reflecting the personalities of the current occupants.

This legislation is supported by a broad range of stakeholders, including the AFL-CIO and several other major unions, and it passed the Judiciary Committee by a nearly unanimous vote of 27-1.

It deserves similar support by the full House, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, there is an obvious cancer at the heart of the credibility, perhaps even of the legitimacy, of the Trump administration. That cancer consists of questions pertaining to the relationship of this administration with Russia.

We know that the Russians intervened in the last election with the goal of advantaging Trump's campaign over Hillary Clinton. We know that there were numerous Trump campaign transition team and administration officials in contact with the Russians--prior to, during, and after the campaign.

We know that there is a pattern of these individuals at first denying such contacts but later, after being forced to come clean, admitting them.

Examples to date include: former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and Roger Stone, who admitted that he was in contact with Guccifer 2.0, the hacker that the CIA says is a Russian front for military intelligence.

We know that the Attorney General gave false testimony, deliberate or otherwise, to the Senate regarding meetings with Russian officials.

We know that President Trump has financial ties with Russia. Although he denies it, we now know that there are large Russian investments in The Trump Organization. The President's son, Donald Trump, Jr., said a few years ago that money was ``flowing in'' from Russia. That obviously can have a major influence on the President and on the decisions of his administration.

We know that there was a change in the Republican platform dealing with Ukraine to favor Russia, a change that was engineered by the Trump campaign.

We even know who in the Trump campaign gave the instruction to make this change.

We know that there is an ongoing criminal investigation by the FBI of possible collusion by the Trump campaign in the admitted Russian intervention in the attempt by Russia to subvert the 2016 Presidential campaign.

Knowing all this, it is impossible to ignore or to dismiss questions concerning the credibility of the administration, and, certainly, we must ask questions regarding its legitimacy as well, if there is persuasive evidence that crimes were committed in colluding with Russia to subvert the election.

We have a duty to resolve this question, to get answers, to pursue the truth, and to remove any cancer that we may find.

A few weeks ago, the Judiciary Committee considered a resolution of inquiry that I introduced dealing with a number of issues, including the President's conflicts of interests, his possible violations of the Constitution's Emoluments Clause, and any information about possible criminal or counterintelligence investigations related to the President and/or his associates. Yet, to date, the Republicans have opposed our amendments and voted down our resolutions of inquiry, in effect, abdicating their constitutional obligation to provide oversight and enforce the law.

Now we have the spectacle of the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee conducting an obvious coverup, failing to share important information with members of the committee--information, I would add, that revealed President Trump's allegations against former President Obama as completely false--while inappropriately briefing people at the White House on the committee's investigation, the very same people who are the subjects of the investigation.

This is so absurd, so inappropriate, and beyond belief that it is tough to accept the reality of the situation. Sadly, this isn't a television drama we can turn off or walk away from. The integrity of our democratic system of government is at stake.

What we need is honesty. The American people must have faith in the integrity of our government, and it is our job to ensure it. It is time for answers.

If there is no evidence of misconduct, then we should move on. But if the truth reveals a conspiracy, if there is proof of criminal conduct, Donald Trump must be held accountable, and the people around him must be held accountable, and we must act.

There is no superior way to get at the truth and to fulfill our duty to the people of this country than to have an independent investigatory commission established beyond any partisan control. So I urge that that be done so that the people of this country can have confidence once again in their government.

Mr. Speaker, for seven years, the Republicans have tried and failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act. So now, with a Republican-controlled House, a Republican-controlled Senate, and a Republican in the White House, what have they presented us to vote on today? Republicans complained that premiums were skyrocketing, so they offer a bill that raises premiums. They complained that deductibles were too high, so they propose allowing insurance companies to charge more. They complained that too many people were losing their insurance, so they have embraced a plan that will take away health care from 24 million Americans.

This bill imposes a devastating age tax on older Americans and does next to nothing to protect Americans with pre-existing conditions. It gives nearly $900 billion in tax cuts to the insurance companies and the wealthy, while refusing coverage for services as basic as hospitalization. It's simple: Americans will pay more and get less under this bill.

In New York, 2.7 million people will lose insurance and the state will lose $4.6 billion in Medicaid funding. Compounding those cuts is a cynical so-called deal several upstate Members made to secure their votes on this bill. Under the bill, New York State, and ONLY New York State, will no longer be allowed to ask counties to provide a portion of state Medicaid funding.

Don't be fooled--this is no deal at all for New York and will actually gut the State's Medicaid program, forcing hundreds of hospitals to close and rationing health care for millions of New Yorkers.

But my colleagues who have traded their vote for this provision have made an empty bargain. This provision is flatly unconstitutional and will never be enacted. They are giving away health insurance for millions of New Yorkers for an empty promise.

My Republican colleagues claim we need to pass this bill to give people ``freedom'' to buy health insurance. Let me tell you, freedom to buy health insurance and actually being able to afford health insurance are two very different things.

They keep talking about ``access'' to health care. Access is not coverage. When they talk about access and freedom, they are conceding that this bill does nothing to ensure that Americans have affordable, comprehensive health insurance to cover them no matter what their health care needs are.

The Republicans so clearly believe that Americans just need freedom to buy insurance, that when asked what a pregnant woman should do if her state no longer requires insurance companies to cover maternity care, OMB Director Mick Mulvaney said she can ``figure out a way to change the state [she] lives in.'' How callous are my Republican colleagues to believe that is a real option for Americans?

This bill is a cowardly, cynical effort to lower taxes on the rich and dismantle Medicare and Medicaid as we know it. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, President Trump and Speaker Ryan have said that the Affordable Care Act that we have now is a disaster, that it is a calamity.

There are problems with it. For some people in some plans, premiums are too high.

So what do the Republicans want to do?

Raise the premiums.

For some people in some plans, deductibles are too high.

So what do the Republicans want to do?

Make the deductibles much higher.

Let's get away from the rhetoric about the Affordable Care Act and look at what the Republicans plan to do with the bill that we are going to be voting on presumably in the next few days: raise the premiums, raise the deductibles.

They say that you will not be disqualified for preexisting conditions and that you will still be able to get insurance, but not if you let your coverage lapse in 6 months. If you are laid off from your job and you lose your insurance and 6 months later you get insurance, no, you are going to have to pay a 30 percent higher premium in order to get coverage. So their guarantee is worth nothing.

What does the bill that we are going to be voting on do?

This bill would throw 24 million people off of coverage. Twenty four million Americans would lose their health care, the security of mind that they have now. This bill would destroy about 2 million jobs. This bill would force families to pay higher costs, higher premiums, higher deductibles.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that a 50- or 60-year-old person making $26,000 and who, under ObamaCare, is paying, after the subsidies, out of pocket $1,700 a year for health insurance, will, under this new Republican bill, after the appropriate subsidies that this bill will give, pay not $1,700, but $14,000 on a pretax income of $26,000.

So this bill will increase costs, throw 24 million people off of coverage, and impose an age tax. People above 50 years old will have to pay five times as much as younger people for insurance, a very crushing age tax.

Why? Why do this?

Because they say people need more freedom to choose their health care.

People don't need more freedom to choose their health care. People need better health care. They need coverage. They need security. They need coverage that will take care of their health needs at a low cost. That is what they need.

The ObamaCare, the existing bill that we have, the Affordable Care Act, gives them that, not as well as it should. We should make improvements to it. It is not an improvement to throw 24 million people off of coverage, increase the cost, and institute a crushing age tax.

Why?

It is to give a tax benefit of $2.8 billion to the richest 400 families in the United States. This bill would be the largest transfer of wealth from low- and mostly middle-income people to the top 1 percent in American history.

Let me just address one last thing. People are being bribed to vote for this bill. People are being bribed legally. Provisions are being put in the bill to say: Hey, if you vote for this bill, you will benefit, your State will benefit.

Okay. There is nothing wrong with that. It has been done before.

Let's take a look at one of those bribes, the so-called New York bribe. New York, along with 15 other States, takes advantage or utilizes a provision in the law that has been in the law since 1965 in Medicaid in which the State share of Medicaid is borne partially by the State and partially by local governments. Sixteen States have elected to do that.

This bill says that New York State only will be prohibited from sharing the burden of Medicaid with local governments. So $2.3 billion will be shifted from various local governments onto the State's taxpayers, except for New York City. Upstate counties will lose their share. New York City will have to keep it. The State will have to bear the burden. So it is a $2.3 billion increase for State taxpayers.

Now, eight Republicans, we are told, from upstate New York are going to vote for this bill just because of that. They don't like the bill in other respects, but because of that provision, which will relieve some of the burden from local counties, they are going to vote for the bill; and they say so. Representative Collins of New York said so. He would vote for that bill. He got a number of other people to agree. That is why the provision is in the bill.

Okay. But it is not going to happen. It is flatly unconstitutional. They are selling their votes for something that is never going to happen, and that is just wrong. This bill should not be approved. It is a sellout to the people of the entire country.

Mr. Speaker, I hereby congratulate Judge Bentley Kassal on the occasion of his 100th birthday. Judge Kassal has dedicated his life to public service, and we are grateful for his contributions to the people of New York. As a member of the New York State Assembly from 1957 through 1962, Judge Kassal represented a significant portion of Manhattan's Upper West Side in the very same Assembly district that I would later serve. During his time in Albany, Judge Kassal, among other accomplishments, authored a bill establishing the New York State Council on the Arts--the very first arts council to operate in the United States.

Mr. Kassal was later elected to the New York City Civil Court in 1969 and then the New York Supreme Court in 1975. In 1982, Governor Hugh Carey appointed Judge Kassal to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court. He continued in that capacity until 1993. Following his retirement from the bench, Judge Kassal has served as counsel at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, and Flom, where he continues to provide assistance with litigation matters.

Judge Kassal is also a decorated war veteran, and was stationed abroad as an air combat intelligence officer for four years during World World II. In recognition of his distinguished military service, Judge Kassal has received the Bronze Star medal and the French Legion of Honor medal.

I am incredibly proud to count Judge Kassal as one of my constituents. The people of New York have been the fortunate beneficiaries of Judge Kassal's years of service. I wish him a warm congratulations on this special occasion, and thank him for his contributions to our community.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 720, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act. This bill is supposedly aimed at preventing frivolous litigation, but it would, in fact, generate a whole new set of litigation, further clogging our overburdened Federal courts.

Under rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may impose sanctions on a party that files a frivolous case or motion. A party subject to a rule 11 violation has a 21-day safe harbor period to withdraw or correct its filing, and sanctions are purely discretionary. This rule serves a vital role in maintaining the integrity of our legal system without creating a chilling effect on presenting novel claims. Judges, when they see frivolous suits, can sanction them and do.

This bill, however, would restore a failed version of rule 11 that was enacted by the Judicial Conference in 1983, but which was repealed 10 years later because it led to disastrous results. Under this bill, sanctions would be mandatory whenever a court rules that rule 11 has been violated. The safe harbor period, when filings can be withdrawn or corrected, would be eliminated.

We do not have to speculate about what would happen as a result of this bill because we have a decade of experience that shows us how catastrophic it would be and was. Under the 1983 rule, which this bill would restore, rule 11 battles became a routine part of civil litigation, affecting one-third of all cases. Rather than serving as a disincentive, the old rule 11 actually made the system even more litigious.

In the decade following the 1983 amendments, there were almost 7,000 reported rule 11 cases, becoming part of approximately one-third of all Federal civil lawsuits. Civil cases effectively became two cases, one on the merits and the other on a set of dueling rule 11 allegations by both parties. The drain on the courts and the parties' resources caused the Judicial Conference to revisit the rule and adopt the changes that this bill would now have us undo.

More troubling was the 1983 rule's impact on civil rights cases, which are often based on novel claims that require significant discovery to establish. A 1991 Federal Judicial Center study found that whereas civil rights cases made up 11.4 percent of Federal cases filed, they constituted 22.7 percent of the cases in which sanctions were imposed. If we return to the old rule, we could see a chilling effect in which untested, but no less valid, civil rights claims are never brought for fear of sanctions.

The courts have ample authority to sanction conduct that undermines the integrity of our legal system. But this legislation is not just a solution in search of a problem. By taking us back to a time when rule 11 actually promoted routine, costly, and unnecessary litigation, this bill is a cure worse than the disease.

Given that we already know this bill will be a failure, one wonders how it would survive its own rule 11 motion if Congress had such a thing. The courts, having tried it for 10 years with disastrous results, rightly rejected this approach 20 years ago, and we should reject it again. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 725, the misnamed Innocent Party Protection Act. The main purpose of this bill is to make it easier to remove State cases to Federal courts, where large corporate defendants have numerous advantages over consumers and injured workers.

Let's not talk about the emotional devastation. We are talking about large, corporate defendants. We are not worried about their emotions. Their litigation departments are quite capable of handling the emotions.

This bill will clog the Federal courts, drain judicial resources, upset well-established law, and delay justice for plaintiffs seeking to hold businesses accountable for the injuries they cause. It is yet another attempt by the Republican majority to stack the deck in favor of large corporations.

This bill is the opening salvo of this week's series of bills by the Republicans to close off access to the courts to ordinary Americans. With every step they take, whether it be to remove more State cases to Federal courts, to make class action suits more difficult to bring, or to reclassify more lawsuits as frivolous and subject to mandatory sanctions, they are limiting access to court help for ordinary Americans.

The so-called Innocent Party Protection Act would upend the century- old doctrine of fraudulent joinder, in which a defendant from the same State as the plaintiff is improperly added to a case in order to defeat diversity jurisdiction in Federal court, and, therefore, keep the case in a State court. Under current law, a defendant claiming fraudulent rejoinder has the burden of showing that there is ``no reasonable basis'' for a claim against the instate defendant, and, therefore, the case should remain in Federal court.

This bill would turn that process on its head by placing the burden on the plaintiff to show that there is a ``plausible'' claim against the instate defendant and that the plaintiff has a ``good faith intention'' to pursue a claim against that defendant. Both standards are undefined in the bill, but it is likely that many plaintiffs would find these hurdles impossible to overcome at the initial stages of litigation before discovery.

Furthermore, defendants will use this forum shopping bill to delay justice by routinely challenging jurisdiction. It will drain court time and allow corporate defendants to force plaintiffs to expend their limited resources on what should be a simple procedural matter. Under this bill, the preliminary determination of jurisdiction would become a baseless, time-consuming mini-trial before a second time-consuming trial on the merits. While large corporations could easily accommodate such costs, injured workers, consumers, and patients cannot.

The practical effect of this bill is to force cases based on State law, which should properly be heard in State courts, to be considered in our overburdened Federal courts instead. Large corporations generally believe that Federal courts are a friendlier forum, especially since they are overburdened and they can afford to wait whereas the plaintiffs cannot, and they believe that they have a better chance of escaping liability for their actions in the Federal court.

There is no evidence of a systemic crisis of fraudulent joinder, nor is there evidence that the courts cannot properly handle whatever issues may arise under current law. There is certainly no evidence that what wealthy corporations need are greater advantages in the courts. Yet, this bill hands them yet another gift from the Republican majority, and it is ordinary consumers and injured workers who will suffer.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.