Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, ``There will never be an end.'' That is how Emily Addison described the love and the loss she feels for her partner and the mother of her son, Deonka Drayton.

Deonka was one of 49 victims killed at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando 1 year ago today. She was one of hundreds who had gone to Pulse that night as a place of celebration, a place of joy, and a place of pride.

We mark 1 year since the worst mass shooting in our history, an act of terror against the LGBT community, and

we mark this somber event today during Pride Month.

This day creates enormous tension for the LGBT community and its allies. Our hearts are broken for the victims and for their families.

We are angry, we are frustrated, yet we are still filled with pride. We are proud of the lives they lived, though they were cut far too short.

Today, I stand with the LGBT community. And together, we stand against hatred, we stand against terror, and we stand for love and for pride, pride that has no end.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the honorees of the Broward Education Foundation for their efforts to make the Broward County Public School system one of the best in the state. These men and women have served Broward County with distinction through their efforts, and they have demonstrated a commitment to improving our public schools in South Florida.

The Broward Education Foundation helps to provide the students of Broward County with an exceptional education, enabling them to reach their greatest potential. The scholarships provided by the Foundation will enable 190 students this year alone to pursue their goals of higher education.

I express deep appreciation for the Broward Education Foundation's important work. Their dedication has truly changed lives by providing students the educational tools they need to achieve success. I thank them for their work and service.

Mr. Speaker, this morning, I supported the Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act to help stop the unspeakable cruelty of child pornography.

The trade of child pornography on the internet is not just information streaming across wires, it is abuse; and those who trade in child pornography are compounding the physical abuse of innocent victims who are depicted in these horrible images. They are real children next door and across the country.

An astounding 28 percent of American youth will be sexually victimized at some point in their lives. Thankfully, the Child Rescue Coalition in Boca Raton, Florida, is already fighting back. They are using real-time data to help law enforcement track sexual predators from the darkest corners of the internet to their front door.

Child Rescue Coalition has used their cutting edge technology as a critical partner with law enforcement and child advocates to help rescue over 2,000 lonely, afraid, and hurt children across the world.

I thank my constituent, Carly Yoost, for the heroic work of the Child Rescue Coalition--shielding, rescuing, and safeguarding children from sexual exploitation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 69th anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel. Like our own country, our friend and ally has a deep commitment to meeting human needs around the world.

Throughout its history, Israel has been a leader in humanitarian assistance. Israel established the very first field hospital in Haiti after the devastating earthquake in 2010 and rebuilt villages ravaged by cyclones in Fiji. Israel sent over 100 tons of supplies to aid Indonesia and Sri Lanka after the 2004 tsunami, and dispatched doctors to Greece to care for refugees fleeing the horrors of war in Syria.

When Israeli soldiers reported wounded Syrians arriving at their border, medics from the Israeli military were dispatched and over 3,000 Syrians were treated by Israeli doctors.

Today, as we celebrate Israel's proud history and the bond between our nations, we are reminded of the importance of looking beyond our own borders and our proud shared history of welcoming those fleeing persecution from all around the globe. We renew our shared commitment to helping those in need in every corner of the world.

Mr. Chair, I thank my friend, the ranking member from Michigan, for the time, and I appreciate the opportunity to join the majority of my committee colleagues as a cosponsor of this bill. It reflects the general consensus that Congress needs to step in to increase the autonomy of the Copyright Office, while still respecting its historic connection to the Library.

This bill is an important first step in reforming the Copyright Office, but it can't be the only step. Through the hearings this committee has held over the past few years, we have learned how truly behind the curve the Copyright Office is.

I have worked with colleagues to find a bipartisan and consensus- driven set of reforms for the Copyright Office that would go beyond just this step in the process of selecting a Register, as have the chairman and Ranking Member Conyers and others on the committee.

It should be obvious that, to bring the Office into the 21st century, we need to do more than just change the selection process for the Register of Copyrights. It requires a massive overhaul of the IT system of the Office to create both a smoother process for creators seeking to protect their work and a system to enable the public to search the broad catalog of American creativity.

It requires increased accountability and consultation with both the creative and the user communities so that we ensure that the improvements and investments meet the needs of all those who rely on the Copyright Office to do its job well.

Establishing the Register of Copyrights with authority outside of the Library of Congress is not a reflection on the Librarian of Congress. It is a recognition of the reality that the Library and the Copyright Office have two fundamentally different missions, and they deserve to be empowered to pursue those missions. It is a recognition that success for both of these important entities means allowing them to maintain their historic connection but operate on a day-to-day basis with greater autonomy.

I am glad that the chairman has taken up this first step, and I look forward to working with him and Ranking Member Conyers and others on the next steps as well.

This piece of legislation supports strong copyright laws in our country. Having strong copyright means the ability for creators to be able to do their work. It means the creation of jobs.

The reason that this piece of legislation has such strong bipartisan support, the reason that it is supported by the thousands and thousands of people who earn their living every day as a result of the creativity that strong copyright laws protect, the reason they are supporting this legislation is because it is an important first step.

I am glad to participate in this debate, and I look forward to passing this bill, H.R. 1695, in order to take that first step to promote stronger copyright, to provide the kind of autonomy that the Copyright Office needs so that it can move forward rapidly with modernization, and, most importantly, at this moment in our Nation's history, to ensure that we have the strongest possible avenue to create even more good jobs, well-paying jobs. That is what this legislation is about.

Mr. Chair, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will place a much-needed priority on advancing the technological capabilities of the U.S. Copyright Office.

I support the underlying bill to make the selection of the Register of Copyrights more open and more transparent. I also support the additional congressional oversight that will be necessary to ensure that the Register is accountable to the American people.

I agree with Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and my other colleagues on the Judiciary Committee that it is important that this bill move forward now. Making this improvement to the selection process for the next Register is an important first step before the committee advances broader Copyright Office modernization.

Even as we take this initial modest step to improve the appointment process, we can do more to strengthen the Copyright Office for today's economy. The Copyright Office's mission is to administer our Nation's copyright laws for the public good.

Securing Americans' rights to their intellectual property fosters creativity and benefits all Americans by advancing the arts and the sciences. In recent decades, this mission has been undermined by comically outdated information technology systems at the Copyright Office.

My amendment makes a simple change to the underlying bill to ensure that technology is always a part of the equation when selecting a new Register of Copyrights. My amendment would require the Register of Copyrights to be capable of identifying and supervising a chief information officer.

The CIO or a similar official would be responsible for managing information technology systems to advance the Copyright Office's capabilities and keep pace with our 21st century economy. One would assume that any qualified candidate for the Register of Copyrights has the skills and experiences necessary to guide the Office's technology office.

Why leave this vital aspect of the Copyright Office to assumptions?

Requiring the head of the Copyright Office to be ready to make this vital selection is not an overly burdensome obligation. For practical purposes, this capability is a necessity, and that is why my amendment would make technology an explicit part of the selection process.

My amendment merely requires that the person who will serve as the Register be capable of supervising the Office's chief information officer. Whatever happens next as we move forward with modernization, IT systems of the Copyright Office must keep pace with new advancements in technology. If Congress expects real progress toward improving the Copyright Office's technology, we must ensure that the leaders we select are prepared for the job.

I thank my Judiciary Committee colleague, Ms. Lofgren. She made this point in committee during the markup of this bill, and the language in this amendment takes her suggestion a step further. It is a small change to the underlying bill, but it sends a much-needed signal that the work of the Copyright Office must include a focus on improving its IT systems.

This is only the beginning of Congress' work to modernize the Copyright Office. H.R. 1695 is a good first step, and I strongly support the underlying bill, but any step forward toward modernization must have IT improvements at the front of mind. I hope my colleagues also support this change. I think it is a commonsense step.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Michigan. I appreciate the strong support from Chairman Goodlatte, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this good amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the twenty two outstanding teachers in South Florida who have been awarded the Teacher of the Year Award from the Rotary Club of Boca Raton Sunrise.

For the past 31 years, the Rotary Club of Boca Raton Sunrise has offered this annual distinction to one teacher at each of the twenty- two schools in the greater Boca Raton area. Each awardee is selected by the school's principal. These teachers have dedicated their time to inspiring, empowering, and bettering the next generation of youth in our community. Their passion in this effort is truly worthy of our recognition.

These twenty-two exemplary teachers have made a profound impact on their students through their caring, commitment, and professionalism. They are a cohort defined by integrity, excellence, and the highest marks in all they do. The City of Boca Raton is fortunate to have such outstanding faculty.

Congratulations to Maria Laing, Brad Chappell, Kelly Green, CarolAnn Da Rocha, Meghan Forbush, Mariel Stark, Shari Farenga, Eileen O'Brien, Denise Rudy, Courtney Elkin, Emlyn McAna, Nora Buck, Robin Koota, Sarah Gregory, Jacqueline Grandison, Shelly Devino, Mary Fish, Anna Lillie- Young, Karen Gibson, Amanda Fraga, Lance Blank, and Sharon Gotschall on being nominated for this year's Teacher of the Year Award. I am pleased to honor them, and I thank them, for their continued service.

Mr. Speaker, the GOP health repeal bill rips coverage from 24 million Americans.

So I ask my colleagues: Can you imagine what it is like to gasp for air, your chest tightening and your lungs burning from asthma, worrying that you might black out because you cannot get enough oxygen?

This week a constituent of mine from Fort Lauderdale told me: Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, I am finally able to breathe.

The ACA dropped her asthma medicine costs from $600 per month to $10. Without the ACA, she cannot afford to breathe.

Can you imagine your medication within reach but you can't afford to use it? If you take your medicine when you need it, if you help yourself breathe now, you can't afford it next month.

As you jog up the Capitol steps for this vote today, as you take for granted every easy breath you take today, think about your constituents who rely on their health care for their next breath and vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, today, March 9, marks 10 years since my constituent Bob Levinson disappeared in Iran. I had hoped that I would not have to come to the floor today to mark this day or to introduce another resolution on Bob. I had hoped that Bob would be home in south Florida with his wife, his seven children--one of whom is with us today--and his six grandchildren. Bob should be home in time to see his two new grandchildren born later this year.

Ten years is too long. This family deserves answers. Iran must stop playing games, promising to assist finding Bob, agreeing last year to open a new dedicated channel for Bob's case, only time and time again refusing to follow through. Iran must provide meaningful information that will bring Bob home. This new administration must press Iran at every opportunity. I stand ready to work with them and with anyone who is committed to bringing Bob back home to his family where he belongs.

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

Mr. Chairman, the right to choose one's own counsel is a basic right in our democracy. This is a right that is a foundation of a fair and impartial judicial system.

Having the right to choose one's own attorney ensures that a person can hire an attorney who will best represent their interests and protect their rights in the judicial process.

H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act, undermines this basic right by requiring a court to deny any class action certification based solely on a proposed class representative or named plaintiff being represented by a family member. The bill provides no discretion to the court and no exceptions.

The bill uses an expansive definition that includes not only immediate family members, but extended parts of a family tree by blood and marriage. Such a broad definition is an unfair restriction on the right to an attorney of one's own choosing.

Previously, the manager's amendment modified this provision but did not relieve these concerns. Such broad, blanket assumptions about family relationships fail to recognize the importance of trust and expertise into the attorney-client relationship.

In many instances, a family member will best represent their interests in court or could have specialized training and experience relevant to the case, yet the language in this bill does not provide for any discretion or any exceptions.

The fact that a lawyer representing a potential class is a family member of a named class member does not, in itself, create a conflict of interest; and under current law, there is a process for courts to address real conflicts of interest when they arise.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(g), courts have an extensive list that must be satisfied when appointing counsel to represent a class. There also already is a strong disincentive against conflicts through fairness hearings after settlement is reached. Any potential conflict of interest risks spoiling the agreement and wasting the efforts of counsel and the class.

Removing the discretion of the courts is overly broad and will remove access to appropriate counsel where no conflict exists. I urge strong support for my amendment and the removal of this provision from this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt this important amendment to ensure that they have an opportunity to be heard when they are injured by an attorney of their choice.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to vote, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and other rights enumerated in the Constitution have an intrinsic value that cannot be adequately expressed in dollars and cents. When a person's constitutional rights are violated, they cannot be made whole entirely with money, and yet the bill that we have before us today would require our judicial system to hang a price tag on our most cherished constitutional rights.

Under H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act, if a ``judgment or proposed settlement in a class action provides for equitable relief, the portion of any attorney's fee award to class counsel that is attributed to the equitable relief shall be limited to a reasonable percentage of the value of the equitable relief, including any injunctive relief.''

Mr. Chairman, when a court grants such relief, it is not awarding money to a plaintiff. In these cases, the courts are stepping in to say this is a violation of constitutional rights and it must stop.

My amendment would strike the provision in this bill that would devalue our fundamental rights by requiring a highly subjective and wasteful, costly, and demeaning process of putting a price tag on these rights. Worse, it would deter attorneys from bringing critical civil lawsuits that reform systemic and widespread violations of individual rights.

When we think of class actions, we usually imagine a group of people seeking money to compensate them for an injury or a harm--a toxic spill, a horrific accident, an Erin Brockovich-type story. But the reality is that there are many class actions that do not seek monetary damages but are fighting to right a systemic wrong in our society.

These class actions have made lasting changes to our legal system and society that have moved our country closer to equality and justice, landmark class actions such as: Brown v. Board of Education, ending separate but equal as a basis for racial segregation in our schools; Allen v. State Board of Elections, finding that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires preclearance of any changes in voting practices; and Alexander v. Holmes County School District, requiring immediate integration of the schools. In these cases, plaintiffs asked the courts to protect and preserve their constitutional rights for themselves and others in similar situations in the future.

Under the system set forward by H.R. 985, a court would have to also set a dollar value to the judgment. How do you place a price tag on desegregating our Nation's public schools? How do you place a price tag on protecting the right to vote? How do you put a price tag on preserving the Constitution's Sixth Amendment right to counsel? How do you put a price tag on the fundamental right of marriage? It is not possible. These are fundamental, constitutional rights, and these rights are priceless.

If this bill were to become law, courts and civil cases would become bogged down in ancillary litigation aimed at establishing the value of rights, rights that are protected through equitable and injunctive relief. It would be a mess, and we don't have to make this unforced error.

I oppose the underlying bill, but it is my sincere hope that, if the House is going to pass it, the least that we can do is remove this provision from the bill and end this insulting pretense that the courts or anyone else can put a dollar value on our constitutional freedoms.

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

Mr. Chairman, section 1983 that my friend, the chairman, refers to as to providing attorney's fees, requires a determination of attorney's fees by the number of hours reasonably expended on litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly fee.

This bill is very different from that. Instead of referring to hours and an hourly rate reasonably spent by an attorney, this bill requires the court to establish the value of the actual, equitable, or injunctive relief.

As I have suggested already, I cannot think of anyone who would believe that we should leave it up to a court to put a value on our constitutional rights that are, without question, priceless in our democracy.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this good amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay'' on Roll Call No. 134, ``Nay'' on Roll Call No. 135, and ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 136.

Mr. Speaker, Michael Flynn's resignation does not close the book on the administration's coziness with Russia. It confirms the urgent need for a bipartisan investigation of Russia's ties to the Trump administration and its ongoing influence. It confirms the urgent need for the President to release his tax returns so the American people can see any business ties that the President has to Russia.

We need a full, independent inquiry into not just the actions of Michael Flynn in one conversation with the Vice President, but the ongoing connections between the administration and Russia, because the one thing we know for sure is it doesn't stop there. President Trump's fawning praise of Putin and the previous resignation of other aides over their Russian ties made it clear that this is a problem that goes beyond General Flynn.

What we have learned over the past 24 hours is that colluding with a foreign government or lying to the Vice President and others is not what brought Flynn down. It seems that it was only the disclosure of those lies that made it untenable for Flynn to remain. The White House was apparently okay with everything until the American people found out.

We need to find out what else the White House and President Trump doesn't want us to know about their connection to the foreign power that interfered with our election, and we need to start today.

Madam Speaker, it doesn't take a law degree. It doesn't take imagination. All it takes is common sense to see that President Trump's ownership and his family's operation of hotels and golf courses and rental properties is ripe for corruption.

President Trump's failure to completely divest his ownership interest not only violates tradition followed by every other modern President, it is unconstitutional. The Constitution prohibits any U.S. official-- including President Trump--from taking payments from foreign governments.

His ongoing involvement in The Trump Organization will let foreign governments funnel payments to his businesses. Foreign operatives will try to curry favor with the administration with no accountability to the American people.

When he took the oath of office last week, President Trump swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Sadly, his refusal to cut his business ties has broken that vow in these very first days of his administration.

Madam Speaker, on Saturday, I proudly stood shoulder to shoulder with thousands of strong women and their allies in south Florida. It was one of hundreds of demonstrations across the country and the globe, millions of people in the streets sending a loud message that rang out all across the world.

But the GOP majority has chosen to ignore the calls for women to be able to control their own bodies and their own health care. This bill says to American women: your bodies, Washington's rules.

The majority uses talking points about getting Washington out of health care when they are fighting to kick 32 million people off their insurance, but when it comes to women's bodies, House Republicans are happy to step between a woman and her doctor.

As a man, I have never had to drive across State lines to find a doctor. I have never had my doctor silenced about a medical procedure. As a man, I have never had to endure an invasive and unnecessary procedure to satisfy someone else's twisted political desires. These experiences are all too common for women in America today.

While I and my male colleagues in Congress get to have an open and honest relationship with our doctors, this bill will deepen the ugly fight against women's control of their own bodies. Reproductive rights are women's rights and must be respected. Show that respect by voting ``no'' on H.R. 7.

Mr. Speaker, last week, we observed a moment of silence to remember the victims 6 years after the Tucson shooting. Just yesterday, another moment of silence to remember the five people killed and six wounded when they were shot while waiting at the Fort Lauderdale Airport baggage claim.

In those awful moments after the shooting, the airport was thrown into chaos and confusion. Yet, before we knew anything of the circumstances, every American could tell you what would come next because Congress has developed a well-worn routine in response to gun violence: first, shocking news of a deadly shooting, followed by thoughts and prayers, followed by a moment of silence on this floor, followed by a complete failure to take action.

To truly honor the victims, moments of silence must be followed by productive discussions of policy: What will we do to keep our community safer? I ask my Republican colleagues, meet with me. Let's at least start a conversation here on the House floor. We can no longer remain silent during this epidemic of gun violence. Thoughts and prayers are all that we have offered the American people, and that is not enough.

Mr. Speaker, we came together this morning to read the United States Constitution and its 27 amendments. I offer a 28th amendment, an amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's disastrous decision in Citizens United:

Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.

Section 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence our elections.

Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge freedom of the press.

Mr. Speaker, Citizens United let unlimited money flood into our elections and compromise our democracy. I ask all of my colleagues in this 115th Congress to join our effort to overturn it.