Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, this is a bill that is critical for us to pass. It is the result of more than 3 years of hearings, listening tours, and dozens of conversations with a wide range of stakeholders.

Under the leadership of Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Ranking Member John Conyers, the Judiciary Committee members sat through hours of hearings and even traveled to different cities around the country to hear from all the stakeholders that are impacted by our copyright policies.

It is clear that we need a change in the Copyright Office. We need to protect our Copyright Office. We can do that with a Presidential appointee of the Register. That is why this bill is supported by a wide range of stakeholders, including the AFL-CIO; the Screen Actors Guild- American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, SAG-AFTRA; the Directors Guild; the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, or IATSE; the American Federation of Musicians; the Motion Picture Association of America; the Recording Industry Association of America; the GRAMMYs; the National Association of Broadcasters; Software and Information Industry Association; the American Intellectual Property Law Association; and the Intellectual Property Owners Association, amongst many.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues, for the sake of our future and the protection of copyright, to support this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1695 and the amendment that I offer. This is a simple amendment that specifies that the mandatory deposit requirement of the Library of Congress will not be affected in any way by the underlying bill.

Currently, applicants for copyright registration are required to submit two deposit copies to the Copyright Office. After the Office reviews the material to determine whether it qualifies for copyright protection, it makes the copies available for the Library for its use in its permanent collection.

In fact, that is a large reason that the Copyright Office is located in the Library of Congress to begin with. In 1870, Librarian Ainsworth Rand Spofford convinced Congress that placing the Copyright Office in the Library would help build its collection through deposits of registered works, which it has done successfully.

In the digital age, many argue that the mandatory deposit requirement should be modified in some way to better balance the needs of creators and the Library. My amendment states that H.R. 1695 may not be construed to impact the mandatory deposit requirement, and it makes clear that this issue is for another day. Passing this amendment will allow us to focus instead on the many benefits in turning the Register into a Presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed position.

The underlying bill is a result of more than 3 years of hearings, listening tours, and dozens of conversations with a wide range of stakeholders. The Judiciary Committee Members, led by Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member John Conyers, all sat through hours of hearings, and even traveled to different cities around the country to hear from all of our stakeholders who are impacted by our copyright policies.

As the Judiciary Committee finished its thorough review of the Copyright Act, there was broad consensus that the Copyright Office should be modernized and restructured so that it is more accountable to Congress and to the public.

This is why I, along with Congressman Tom Marino, introduced a bipartisan bill to carry out these changes. Our bill, the Copyright Office for the Digital Economy Act, the CODE Act, would also put in place a system similar to the one in H.R. 1695 to elevate the Register. We introduced this bill 2 years ago, before the new Librarian was sworn in and when President Obama was still in office. This has been a bipartisan issue grounded on sound policy considerations.

I believe the changes proposed in H.R. 1695 will help improve the functionality of the Copyright Office, which members of the public rely on to protect their works or properly use copyrighted works. The core copyright industries are now responsible for $1.2 trillion of our GDP, which represents 7 percent of the economy. These industries also employ 5.5 million people.

We need to make sure the Copyright Office can modernize to meet the demands of the growing industries in our country, and its leadership that is accountable to Congress, which will help it move toward that direction. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, due to unforeseen delays on April 5, 2017, I was not present on the House Floor for the first vote of the day. Had I been present, I would have voted nay on Roll Call No. 217, the Motion on ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1219.

Mr. Speaker, my constituent Patty never had to worry about health care. Her husband had insurance through his job. But last year, Patty's husband passed away suddenly. Overnight, Patty found herself without health coverage for herself and her 20- year-old son, who had a preexisting condition.

Even though she was grieving over the sudden loss of her husband, Patty couldn't afford COBRA and had less than a month to find health care for her family. Thank goodness she was able to get coverage through the ACA.

Under TrumpCare, Patty could have her life upended all over again. Patty is 62 years old, and TrumpCare would cause premiums for people over 60 to increase by more than $6,000 a year, making insurance unaffordable. And under the age tax created in this bill, insurance companies could charge Patty five times as much as a young person. She could see skyrocketing costs for her hypertension and doctor's visits.

TrumpCare is a bad deal for Americans like Patty.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote a resounding ``no'' to this downright cruel bill.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans rushed their pay more for less healthcare bill through committees before CBO even had a chance to score it. And then, once they realized that 24 million people would lose coverage, they made late night additions just 2 days before the House is scheduled to vote.

Americans' health care is too important to be done on an artificial deadline. It is too important for people in my district like Rachel. Rachel is a hairdresser in her midthirties, who was finally able to get health coverage for her husband and three children, thanks to the ACA. But under the Republican plan, their coverage will be replaced by tax credits that don't even come close to meeting the healthcare costs for a family of five.

And there are millions just like her struggling to make ends meet. Instead of abandoning people like Rachel to give tax breaks to the wealthiest few, I urge Republicans to do what even Trump promised-- provide health insurance for everybody. That starts with rejecting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to the American Health Care Act, or TrumpCare.

TrumpCare would result in 24 million people losing healthcare coverage. In my Pasadena, California, district, nearly 70,000 people will lose coverage. In Los Angeles County, about 1 million people will lose the coverage they have through Medicaid expansion.

Worst of all, this bill would result in skyrocketing healthcare costs, especially for older Americans. It would hurt people like my constituent Patty from Claremont. Patty is 62 and never had to worry about health care because her husband was a union member with a good job, but in one moment, Patty's life was turned upside down.

Last September, Patty's husband passed away, suddenly. In the blink of an eye, Patty was forced to find new insurance for herself and her 20-year-old son who suffers from a preexisting condition. She couldn't afford COBRA and is a few years away from being eligible for Medicare.

Well, thank goodness the ACA came along and she was finally able to get affordable healthcare insurance. She was so relieved.

But what will happen to Patty's insurance under TrumpCare? We only have to look at the CBO's estimate that a 64-year-old making $26,500 a year could see their health insurance premiums skyrocket from $1,700 a year to $14,600. That amounts to over half their income.

For Patty, these changes could mean thousands in out-of-pocket expenses for her hypertension medication, which she needs to take consistently or face life-threatening consequences. Patty would face a situation that so many older Americans would face: premiums that would rise by 20 to 25 percent by 2026. The premiums rise because, in this bill, the GOP created an age tax which allows older Americans to be charged five times more than younger Americans.

Now, in this bill, there is no concrete plan to help older Americans like Patty deal with the rising cost of premiums under TrumpCare. And certainly nothing in this bill will address the enormous deductibles or out-of-pocket costs that they will face if insurance companies can once again offer substandard plans with limited benefits. You know, so many people like Patty are just one accident away from losing coverage.

Why is she and 24 million other Americans going to suffer so that, in this bill, health insurance executives earning over $500,000 can get a tax break? so that the wealthy can get $600 billion wealthier? so that 400 of the Nation's richest families can get a $7 million tax cut every year?

You know, the term ``coverage loss'' isn't some political tool. It has real life-threatening consequences for people of all ages and incomes across the country.

The bill before us today has been crafted behind closed doors. We have had no hearings on this legislation, and Republicans have not accepted a single Democratic amendment to the bill.

There are just too many American lives at stake. I urge my colleagues to oppose TrumpCare.

Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, or CAPAC, I rise today to honor our former colleague, the Honorable Eni Faleomavega of American Samoa, who passed away last month.

Eni was a true patriot, leader, and friend who dedicated his life to serving our country. His unwavering commitment to improving the lives of all Americans was integrally woven into the fabric of his distinguished military and public service career.

As a founding member of CAPAC, he was also a strong champion for the Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander community across the country.

Throughout his nearly three decades in Congress, he led notable efforts to secure critical funding for American Samoa and worked tirelessly to cultivate stronger U.S. relations throughout the Asia- Pacific region.

It was a privilege to work with Eni, and I will never forget his warmth and strong dedication to bettering our community and our country.

I thank Eni for his lifetime of leadership and service and send my thoughts to his family during this difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Francis ``Danny'' Malcolm, an outstanding citizen who has done so much for his country and his community.

Danny Malcolm was born on August 2, 1946 in Boston, Massachusetts. He was one of six siblings who grew up and went to school in Boston until the outbreak of the Vietnam War. Not one to stand idly by during times of trouble, Danny chose to join the United States Marine Corps on November 8, 1963. He was only 17 years old at the time but he quickly proved to be a highly capable young man that was more than willing to serve his country.

Danny was assigned to the 3rd Battalion 9th Marine Regiment that was stationed at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; a unit that was part of the first amphibious landing in Vietnam. Danny was a proud Marine but he also had the distinction of serving as part of Force Recon, an elite Special Forces unit within the Marine Corps.

As part of this unit, Danny served three tours in Vietnam and was engaged in some of the most important battles of the war including the Defense of Airfields Saigon and Chu Lai in 1965, as well as Operation Kansas, Operation Teton, Operation Madison, and Operation Glenn in 1966. Many of these missions were extremely dangerous and required Danny to engage enemy combatants behind enemy lines, obtain crucial enemy intelligence, provide support to other military units and save fellow service members who had become prisoners of war. His courage and commitment to the United States did not go unnoticed and earned him several medals, including the Sharp Shooter Medal, National Service Medal, Good Conduct Medal, Vietnam Service Medal and Vietnam Special Campaign Medal.

Once the war came to a close, Danny returned home to the United States and earned a degree in Biomedical Engineering and Design from California State University, Long Beach. After graduating from college he joined Kaiser Permanente and committed thirty-four years of his life to the organization. During his tenure at Kaiser he played an important role in opening up the Kaiser facility in Baldwin Park, CA. He was highly respected among his colleagues and considered to be a problem solver that could always be depended on to get the job done.

Despite the many demands of life, Danny always went out of his way to make family a priority. He was a loving husband of thirty-four years to Carol Facciponti-Malcolm, a dedicated father of seven children, a caring grandfather of thirteen and an admiring great grandfather of three. Over the years, Danny became an important part of the community and was seen by friends and family as a wonderful and trustworthy human being who loved his husky dogs, cherished the outdoors and enjoyed to ride his motorcycles.

Above all, Danny was a Marine and as with most service members who fought in Vietnam, the war left a huge impact on him. After having served during one of the most tumultuous times in American history, Danny chose to dedicate his life to helping the men and women he had fought alongside with. He would often leave home days at a time without saying a word in order to embark on a mission in search of Veterans who had become homeless and were suffering from difficult times. He was considered by many to be a defender of the underdog, and Danny lived up to that title by providing struggling Veterans with food and blankets, paying for a few nights shelter at nearby hotels and referring them to local services for much needed assistance.

Whether he was supporting a friend in need or providing a helping hand to a troubled Veteran, Danny spent all of his life helping people. He was a man of honor and loyalty who always sought to do the right thing. Along with his friends and family whose lives have been impacted through his love and care, it is my honor to commemorate the life of Francis ``Danny'' Malcolm, a father, husband, and a remarkable United States Force Recon Marine.

Mr. Speaker, this week, after news came out that General Flynn lied to the people and even to the Vice President, Donald Trump was forced to fire yet another adviser because of their inappropriate ties to Russia.

That brings the total since he first launched his campaign to at least three. This includes former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, who resigned after secret records showed he worked with, and profited from, the corrupt pro-Russian Government in Ukraine before it was ousted.

As we suspected, it turns out that Trump's campaign was in near constant contact with Russia.

Now we ask the questions: Why? Did Trump know? How will these secret talks influence our foreign policy?

We deserve answers. Republicans have said that they don't want to politicize this, and I agree. That is why I support an independent investigation conducted by experts who will provide a more public report.

We have a responsibility to the people to unearth the truth.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 43. This bill is another in a long line of attacks on women's health, women's choices, and women's lives.

For 50 years, title X has been the only federally funded program dedicated to providing comprehensive family planning services for low- income patients. Thanks to title X, these women have gained access to services like birth control, STD testing, cancer screenings, counseling, and sex education.

For most of its history, title X has received broad, bipartisan support from Congress. That is because it has helped millions of women and families. But now, Republicans are using this longstanding program to continue their attack on women's health.

Last year, Republicans eliminated title X funding from their budget altogether. This bill is just the latest attempt to do the same thing by putting family planning resources out of reach for poor women across the country. We cannot let this happen. We cannot let healthy pregnancies and healthy families become a luxury reserved only for the wealthy. It must remain a right for all.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 57. This reckless measure rolls back the progress made by the Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA, by making it easier for schools to ignore vulnerable or underachieving students.

Before ESSA, American schools operated under the one-size-fits-all model of No Child Left Behind. What we got was a lopsided understanding of our education system--one that focused on meeting unforgiving benchmarks and turned a blind eye to students who needed more support.

Then, after years of careful, bipartisan work, we finally succeeded in passing ESSA last Congress. Thanks to the work of the Congressional Tri-Caucus, this bill made needed changes to ensure that vulnerable students, including English language learners and students of color, didn't slip through the cracks. In fact, the accountability provisions within ESSA were specifically designed to protect the rights of every student and ensure that struggling schools have the resources and support they need to succeed.

Now, by rescinding the rule which implements the core of this law, Republicans are undoing all of that work in the name of relentless deregulation. Worse, they are, once again, using the little-known Congressional Review Act, which means no future administration can issue a rule like this ever again.

Most Americans are unfamiliar with the Congressional Review Act because, before this Congress, it has only been used once before. Now Republicans are using it almost daily to weaken our government and support fewer people.

With today's vote, Republicans are taking an ax to equity provisions of ESSA and prioritizing politics over students. Rather than pass this extreme measure, we should focus on a way to enforce ESSA and ensure that every student, no matter their race, income level, or language ability, has access to a quality education.

I urge my colleagues to prioritize our Nation's students and vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 57.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this use of the Congressional Review Act to repeal the Social Security Administration's rule strengthening the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The rule in question implements already-existing law to establish a commonsense streamlining of information which will help improve our background check system for gun purchases.

It is important to note that individuals with disabilities are actually more likely to be victims than perpetrators of gun violence, which is why I support more far-reaching gun safety measures like universal background checks and a ban on the most dangerous weapons.

However, when there have been instances of mass shootings committed by those with a history of mental health issues, top Republicans, including Speaker Ryan, have stood on this very floor to say that they believe we should focus on mental health issues. Well, this is their chance to prove that those were not just empty words; but, instead, they are showing their true loyalties and again resisting any attempt to strengthen basic safeguards to ensure responsible gun ownership.

This is a commonsense regulation that sets a high bar for referring names to the background check system. No one's rights are unduly restricted. An appeals process has been built in to afford due process. So it is clear that my Republican colleagues concerns' are not about safety, but about maximizing profits for gun manufacturers, even if it costs the lives of fellow Americans.

And worse, they are using the restrictive Congressional Review Act to do so. This will not only make it easier for even those with severe mental health issues to buy a gun, but it will also take the option for writing similar rules off the table forever, tying the hands of all future administrations.

This is reckless. Gun deaths are a daily scourge in our country, and it is up to us to do whatever we can to mitigate the risk of the dangerous weapons in the wrong hands. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban on families like the Syrian refugee family of six who were scheduled to arrive in Cleveland on Tuesday, January 31, but are now blocked indefinitely.

Madam Speaker, on Saturday, millions of people took a stand against the assault on women's rights. Today, I stand with them once again to say we have had enough.

Only 2 days after these historic marches, Republicans in Congress have introduced H.R. 7 to silence women by limiting their constitutional right to make personal choices about their reproductive health, without undue government interference.

H.R. 7 is a woman's health catastrophe. Not only would it codify the discriminatory Hyde amendment, it would penalize employers who offer healthcare plans with comprehensive coverage and prevent the 80 percent of ACA enrollees who receive subsidies from purchasing plans that cover abortion services. In effect, it makes abortion an option only for the wealthy.

The law of the land does not say that only some women have the right to choose; it says that all women have the right to choose.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Kalwis Lo, a young man from my district in San Gabriel, California, who told me how his life was saved by the Affordable Care Act.

When he was just out of college, Kalwis was shocked when he was diagnosed with stage III Hodgkin lymphoma. He learned that this disease would end his young life if ignored, but was actually easily treatable in the early stages.

No longer covered by his university, he applied to every type of health insurance he could, but he was denied every single time because of his preexisting condition. He knew that through insurance coverage he could get the chemotherapy treatments that could save his life, but with each denial, he felt more and more desperate.

Then Kalwis learned about the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan under the Affordable Care Act. This plan made insurance accessible to anyone that had been denied due to a preexisting condition. Thankfully, California was one of the States participating in the program. Finally, Kalwis got the chemotherapy he needed. He is one of millions of Americans given the promise of their lives back thanks to the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, national security-- protecting our Nation's borders, airports, and computer networks-- should be a priority.

Making sure the Department of Homeland Security, created with bipartisan support in the wake of September 11, has what it needs to protect our Nation from terrorism and other threats is a no-brainer, but the Republicans are jeopardizing all of that just for the opportunity to tell millions of hardworking, aspiring Americans that they are not welcome here.

This tactic of ``my way or no way'' is dangerous and serves the interests of a few at the expense of the many. Holding our top national security agenda hostage because the Republican majority is unhappy with the President's executive action on immigration is illogical and counterproductive.

In fact, former DHS Secretaries from both parties have warned that this approach will actually weaken--not strengthen--our borders.

The American people deserve better. They expect us to set partisan politics aside and ensure that government has the resources it needs. I urge my colleagues to listen to the needs of the American people and bring a clean DHS funding bill to the floor.