Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to Mr. Gallagher's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.

This harmful amendment would add language to the NDAA that specifically targets Chinese foreign nationals who receive U.S. employment or student visas for extra scrutiny by our Federal Government. If this amendment were to confine itself to the serious issue of safeguarding American interests against foreign political influence, industrial acquisitions, and regional global capabilities, it might be supportable. But this amendment specifically targets an ethnic population in this country by singling out the Chinese who participate in student visa programs and who are receiving employment visas.

While there is no doubt that we must take national security threats from foreign countries seriously, including Russia, this amendment assumes that there is widespread abuse of our visa program from China alone and attempts to paint all Chinese students, scholars, and employees, en masse, as potential spies for China.

This underlying bill already includes elements to address interstate strategic competition and does so without creating a precedent for singling out individuals because of their country of origin. We have seen how our government's policies and actions towards foreign nationals have the ability to impact Americans of certain ethnic backgrounds.

We need to look no further than the examples of Sherry Chen and Dr. Xioaxing Xi, two Chinese-American scientists who were wrongfully accused of being spies for China, only to have their charges dropped with no explanation. In fact, just this month, Sherry Chen was exonerated by a judge who said that her case was a case of gross miscarriage of justice.

It is reckless to categorize an entire country of people as a threat to our national security, and I reject these overly broad and dangerous attempts to build a case that all Chinese students and employees should be viewed with more suspicion in this country than others.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Music Modernization Act. As co-chair of the Congressional Creative Rights Caucus, I am proud to stand with my colleagues to support this consensus bill that aims to modernize our copyright law.

Music is at the heart of how we experience life. We count on the right song to help us express a moment better than we could ourselves.

For music creators, their works help them support their families, keep a roof over their head, and food on the table. But, for far too long, I have heard from songwriters whose compensation was less than pennies in digital play for number one hits, and I have heard from music legends who are touring well into their seventies because their works created before 1972 are not eligible for royalties on digital broadcasts.

This bill will help bring our copyright law into the digital era and address the gaps that prevent creators from receiving fair compensation for their work. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. The lives of our most treasured creators depend on it.

Mr. Speaker, after years of irresponsibly adding to our national debt in order to make the rich richer, Republicans are now trying to con the American people with this insidious and insincere balanced budget amendment.

I say insincere because Republicans have been the greatest contributors to our national debt. They eagerly supported and even extended President Bush's 2001 tax cuts, which added more than $5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years. And at the start of this Congress, they rushed headlong into another $2.3 trillion tax scam that the Congressional Budget Office says will put our deficit over $1 trillion within just 2 years.

And what do the American people get for all of that? Very little, if you are not already rich, since 80 percent of that $2.3 trillion goes straight to the top 1 percent.

Here is why I say this is insidious. First, they pass a Robin Hood tax scam that robs the coffers and gives it to the wealthiest, then they use that debt that they themselves created to justify draconian cuts to the vast majority of Americans who are not millionaires.

In his budget, President Trump proposed cuts of $1.4 trillion from Medicaid, $500 billion from Medicare, $65 billion from Social Security.

Fortunately, Democrats blocked these cuts, but if this amendment passes, look out, America. The programs you depend on will be pillaged to pay for the Republican tax cuts, despite our warnings that it would result in exactly this situation.

In fact, the latest Center on Budget and Policy report said that the cuts mandated by this amendment would result in Social Security being cut by $325 billion in 2025 alone.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and remember Pomona Police Officer Greggory Casillas, a constituent of mine who was struck down in the line of duty.

It was Greggory's dream to be a police officer. He studied police reports after hours, and he always carried flashcards and books to prepare for the police officer exam.

His hard work paid off. Friday, March 9 was the final day of Officer Casillas' ghost phase, the last day before he went out on his own. As one colleague said: ``I've never met someone so eager to become a police officer.''

Tragically, that was also the day Officer Casillas was shot, trying to make contact with a suspect who had fled the police. Officer Casillas put himself at risk so that we could be safer, and we can never thank him enough.

I am so grateful for heroes like Officer Casillas, and I join the hundreds of others who have attended vigils in his honor when I say that he will never be forgotten for his sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the long, full life of a political trailblazer, the Honorable March Fong Eu. After more than thirty years in public service, March Fong Eu leaves behind a legacy of respected leadership and broken barriers. Her success opened doors for immigrants and women throughout the state of California.

A daughter of Chinese immigrants, her desire for equality can be traced back to her time in high school, when a school counselor discouraged her from pursuing a career in the sciences because she believed her Chinese ancestry would prevent anyone from hiring her. She was not deterred and she pursued education to the highest levels. After graduating from the University of California Berkeley in 1943 with a bachelor's degree in dental hygiene, she received her master's degree in education at Mills College. She then received a doctorate in education from Stanford University in 1954.

Ambassador Fong Eu built a career that paved the way for women and Asian Americans who followed her. She first became interested in politics while serving as the first female president of the American Dental Hygienists Association from 1944 to 1947. Years later, she entered the world of politics as the first female Asian American to be elected to the Alameda County Board of Education, where she served from 1961 to 1966. She was also the first Asian American woman to be elected to the California State Assembly, where she represented the 15th District for four terms from 1966 to 1974.

In 1974, she became the first female California Secretary of State, and the first Asian American to be elected to a California constitutional office. At the time, she was the recipient of the highest vote total for a statewide elected office, and won reelection to four more terms. In 1994, President Bill Clinton appointed her as U.S. Ambassador to the Federated States of Micronesia.

Ambassador Fong Eu believed everyone should be treated equally regardless of their gender or ethnicity, and her accomplishments while in office reflect those beliefs. One of her most important campaigns was the successful ban on pay toilets in public buildings. She argued that while men's urinals were free, women were treated as second-class citizens because they were being unfairly charged for the use of public bathrooms. While serving as Secretary of State, she championed voting rights and dramatically expanded access to voting by implementing voter registration by mail, absentee ballots upon request, and allowing voters to register at the Department of Motor Vehicles and other state agencies.

She is an inspiration and role model for all Californians. As more women and minorities are elected to public office, March Fong Eu's legacy will carry on as they continue the fight for equality and justice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lois Catherine Banks Richard, who passed away after a life of devotion to her family and service to her community.

Born in Pasadena, California in 1931, Lois was instilled with the spirit of activism from a young age by her parents. She graduated from Pasadena High School at the age of 16 and went on to become the only African American student on the English Council, Red Cross Council and elected to the Pasadena City College Associated Student Body Cabinet. She transferred to UCLA, where she earned a Bachelor's Degree in Education. After graduating in 1952, Lois married her husband, Rodney Richard, Jr., at All Saints Church in Pasadena. She and Rod soon returned to Pasadena, where Lois pursued teaching and dedicated her career to the students and families of her hometown.

Lois taught elementary school in the Pasadena Unified School District, where she was known for her positive and encouraging teaching style. In 1966, she spearheaded the development of the Pasadena Head Start Program, working to expand early education to underprivileged children and families in the community. Under her guidance, Pasadena saw the development of three new care centers, the Home Start Program, and the Head Start Enrichment Program--services that supported

education, child care, and housing for those in need.

Always looking for ways to further her own education, Lois earned a Master's Degree from Azusa Pacific University by taking night classes while working full-time and caring for her family. After completing graduate school, she went on to be elected as State President of the Association of Head Start Administrators and was appointed to the National Executive Board, where she served before retiring from Head Start after 13 years of service.

Lois was a leader in her community and an activist for social progress throughout her life. In 1979, she ran for Pasadena's City Council, but despite winning a majority of her district's votes, she lost the ensuing citywide runoff election. Seeing how this system prevented fair representation for her community, Lois sought to make a difference. She was joined by organizations like the ACLU and the NAACP in a lawsuit that changed Pasadena's civic voting rules to allow district representation, a cause that sparked similar movements across the country.

Lois made an impact in the lives of countless students, families, coworkers, and friends, and was recognized for her long career of service by the National Head Start Association and by the California State Assembly, which honored her as their 1988 Woman of the Year. On behalf of our community, it is my distinct honor to commemorate the life of Lois Catherine Banks Richard.

Mr. Speaker, we don't want to go to school in a prison. That was the message I heard today from five incredible students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

As they get ready for their school to reopen, what kind of school will we be sending them and all of our children back to? It should not be one of armed teachers. They should be there to teach. What they need are real solutions.

Military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are designed for the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible. They have no place on our streets.

No matter what gun you are buying, nobody should be able to complete a purchase without clearing a background check. That is common sense.

But Republicans are refusing to act because the NRA and gun manufacturers value profits over safety. That is not right.

The students told me today that they want to make ending gun violence a priority for their generation, and that means acting today.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4712.

This bill would allow the Federal Government to override a doctor's medical judgment, without exception. It is motivated by politics, not science.

First, this bill reiterates current law, which already protects all newborns from medical negligence. Second, the criminal penalties in this bill go above and beyond current law and are clearly intended to intimidate doctors. This isn't sound medical practice. This is politics impeding a doctor's medical judgment.

And what is more, this intimidation would endanger newborns. This bill would require all newborn infants to be immediately transferred to the nearest hospital, but not all hospitals have neonatal units, or it might be harmful to move the infant immediately. Clearly, the intent is not to protect newborns but to stir outrage.

This bill is a solution in search of a problem. It is unnecessary, redundant, and part of a broader attack on women's health and reproductive rights from this Chamber and the Trump administration.

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

Mr. Speaker, less than 24 hours after it passed, we already have to come back to vote on fixes to the Republican tax scam.

This bill was so needlessly rushed that there wasn't even time to proofread. I can only wonder what other mistakes we will discover in the coming days, weeks, and months.

This was sloppy lawmaking and bad policymaking. In order to give massive tax cuts to corporate interests and the top 1 percent, Republicans have created trillions in new debt that will have to be paid for by, you guessed it, the rest of us.

Republicans claim that everybody is getting a tax cut. But if you read it--something they clearly didn't do--you will see that 83 percent of the benefits go to the top 1 percent. The average savings for the lowest earners is just $60. My own constituents in California can actually expect to pay more in taxes thanks to the capping of the State and local tax deduction.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this tax scam, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, we were promised a middle class tax cut. This is not it. What we have instead are tax cuts for the wealthiest paid for by the rest.

So what happened?

Maybe Trump thinks multimillionaires are the middle class or maybe this all is just a tax scam.

To see how working families will pay for corporate interest, all you have to do is read the bill, which is hard to do, because it was written overnight behind closed doors.

Tax cuts: they reduce the tax rate for the wealthiest from 39.6 percent to 37 percent.

State and local taxes: they cap the deduction to just $10,000. But in my State of California, the average deduction is $18,500, meaning families will be forced to pay taxes now on twice their income in order to give a staggering tax break to corporations.

So hear this: 83 percent of the benefits of this bill goes to the top 1 percent.

Who gets cut?

Seniors, families, children.

Is this the right thing to do?

The answer is a resounding no.

Mr. Speaker, this tax scam is one of the greatest cons I have seen in my time in Congress, and Republicans know it. Why else would they rush to vote without giving the public time to review or understand legislation that impacts 100 percent of our economy? In the Senate, they even shattered regular order to pass this bill with handwritten, illegible changes in the dead of night on Saturday. Perhaps it is because they don't want anybody to see how far this bill strays from their promises.

They promised historic tax cuts, but unless you are already rich or a corporation already seeing record profits, you are unlikely to benefit. Instead, you and your children will be paying to make the rich richer.

Republicans don't even deny that individuals get less than corporations. But it is okay, they claim, because that money will get to you eventually. They keep citing these magical numbers of money that you will get, but we know these dollars won't come.

Whether losing deductions for State and local taxes, paying more for student loans, or facing higher healthcare prices, thanks to the repeal of the mandate, the GOP tax scam will hurt millions.

Mr. Speaker, one thing is clear about the GOP tax scam: corporate interests get a huge giveaway. They get a windfall tax break. Who pays for it? The middle class. Who wins? Corporations, billionaires, millionaires, the Trump family. Who loses? Women, families, seniors, teachers, students.

As a former Los Angeles Community College teacher of 20 years, I can't believe what Republicans are doing to students. They rip away critical benefits that help our students pay for their college education. They eliminate the student loan interest deductions and choose to tax graduate students on money they have never even received by taxing the tuition assistance they get for working for their schools.

This bill even pinches students when they are still in elementary school by taxing their teachers who claim a deduction for the school supplies they pay for out of their own paycheck. One teacher in my area even pays for the ink in her classroom printer. They don't ask to be repaid, just to be able to deduct the expense.

If corporations get to keep this deduction, why not our teachers? And then if that is not cruel enough, they eliminate the deduction for extraordinary medical expenses for those with Alzheimer's and cancer. And this week we learn that Republicans plan to pay for these corporate cuts by causing 13 million people to lose their health insurance, a move that will increase premiums by 10 percent and result in individuals with preexisting conditions losing access to lifesaving affordable coverage.

Then Republicans eliminate the State and local ta deduction, which is used by over 6 million California households, to prevent their hard- earned dollars from being taxed twice. Of all the States, Californians will actually face the largest net tax increase

from this bill of $12.1 billion in 2027 alone.

California Republicans who vote for this bill ought to be ashamed of themselves, and the voters need to hold them accountable. Thirty-six million middle class families will be stuck holding the bag under this plan. For what? For tax cuts for corporate interests. This is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the GOP tax scam bill, H.R. 1, which, considering who it really helps, should be labeled ``H.R. 1 percent.''

As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I offered amendments to ensure the middle class benefits, but Republicans rejected those proposals in order to give away tax cuts for corporate interests and the top 1 percent. Instead, H.R. 1 percent repeals the deductions for State and local taxes, raising taxes on California families who already pay more to the Federal Government than they receive back. In fact, the average middle class California family who owns a home will see an average tax increase of 26.4 percent, making California the hardest hit State in the country. It is outrageous.

The SALT deduction enables communities to fund important services that improve our quality of life, like law enforcement, infrastructure, and education. But repealing it forces constituents in my State to either accept higher taxes or a lower standard of living, all to pay for tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest few.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the GOP tax scam.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the underlying rule that would allow for consideration of the Senate-passed Republican Budget. If passed, this budget would allow Republicans to fast-track their tax plan through Congress without Democratic support.

Now, I stand in support of a tax plan to help the middle class, but that is not the tax plan we are seeing proposed by Republicans. Instead, we see that 80 percent of the benefits will go to the richest 1 percent in this country. The problem? Somebody has to pay for it, and it looks like it could be the middle class.

I have heard from workers worried that cuts of contributions to their 401(k) plans will ruin their retirement. I have heard from seniors worried that losing homeowners' incentives will make it harder for them to stay in their homes. And I have heard from families worried that a repeal of the State and local tax deduction will increase their tax burden.

In fact, we know that one-third of the middle class will see their taxes increase under this plan. And the numbers show that, as our constituents begin to learn more, they are realizing that this plan only cuts taxes for the wealthy and corporate interests and leaves middle class families behind. That is why a Reuters poll released yesterday found that fewer than a third of Americans support the Republican tax plan at all.

This tax plan for the rich will increase the deficit by $2.2 trillion. And who will pay for it? Your children and their grandchildren. They will have to suffer from the cuts made down along the line to education, to Medicaid, to Medicare.

And for what? To make the rich richer? To line the pockets of Washington special interests? That is not right.

Reject this budget. Most importantly, reject this tax plan.

Mr. Chair, typically, a budget is a blueprint for how our government plans to meet our obligations to our people; but not this time.

By including reconciliation instructions for their tax plan, the Republicans are using this budget as a blueprint to give tax cuts to the wealthiest few, without requiring bipartisan support.

Under this bill, a family making $50,000 a year could see their tax burden go up, while millionaires will save $230,000. And who will pay to make the rich richer? Our working families, children, and seniors.

This budget slashes priorities like education, infrastructure, and veterans' benefits, and even guts Medicare and Medicaid by $1.5 trillion.

``You can't make guarantees,'' is how Treasury Secretary Mnuchin responded when asked if the Republican tax plan would help the middle class. But the thing is, you can make guarantees. If this Republican budget moves forward, it will guarantee that inequality gets worse, while the rest of us pay to help make millionaires into billionaires.

Mr. Chairman, I reject this budget and ask my colleagues to oppose it.