Judy Chu

Ms. JUDY CHU of California

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, the inclusion of $1.6 billion to fund an ineffective divisive border wall is a direct attack on immigrant communities across our Nation. Funding this immoral wall does nothing to help our country. It only helps to promote President Trump's campaign of fear. The wall itself mirrors President Trump's approach to policy: divisive, ineffective, and motivated by hate. This is exemplified by the Trump administration's reckless disregard of the humanitarian cost of building a border wall, which will force immigrants and asylum seekers to take greater risks and more dangerous routes that will likely result in more deaths. Furthermore, this wall will literally divide immigrant households and tear families apart. Instead of funding ineffective efforts to protect our homeland from dangerous threats, this administration would rather fulfill a campaign promise that does the exact opposite. It makes us less safe by targeting immigrant communities and closing off America from our neighbors. American taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for President Trump's xenophobic anti-immigrant agenda.

Ms. JUDY CHU of California

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), the ranking member of the committee.

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 2364, the Investing in Main Street Act of 2017. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, accounting for two out of every three new jobs. So as part of our commitment to creating opportunities and growing our economy, it is our responsibility to help more small businesses succeed. The SBA's Small Business Investment Company, or SBIC, program is an effective tool that facilitates private investment into early stage startup small businesses across the country, and all at no Federal cost. Tesla, FedEx, Apple, Intel, and Costco are just a few examples of the thousands of small businesses that have successfully used the Small Business Investment Company program during their early stages of growth. One of the SBIC program's greatest strengths is its hands-off approach, giving fund managers the autonomy to invest in almost any business sector they choose, from apparel to cutting-edge technology. This freedom, coupled with sound investment strategies, has led to its success. In fact, in 2016, the SBIC program provided $6 billion in financing to 1,200 small businesses and helped to sustain over 120,000 jobs. It has afforded America's small businesses an invaluable opportunity to grow their innovative ideas. However, the SBIC program is currently restricted from taking more than 5 percent of capital investments from banks due to an outdated provision in the Small Business Investment Act of 1958. At the same time, current banking regulations established by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency allow these banks to invest up to 15 percent of their capital and surplus into SBICs. The Investing in Main Street Act will correct this discrepancy by allowing banks and Federal savings associations to invest up to 15 percent of their holdings to these funds to match current banking regulations. This change will strengthen and grow the SBIC program, unleashing more capital to small businesses, and all at no cost to the taxpayer. That means more entrepreneurs will be able to access the capital they need to grow their businesses and hire more workers. This legislation makes a sensible change to address the number one need of small firms: accessing capital. I would like to thank our cosponsors, Representative Knight and Representative Meng, for their support, and I ask my fellow Members to support this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, access to capital is the lifeblood of every small business. The SBIC program fills the gap between the availability of venture capital and the needs of small businesses in startup and growth situations. The SBIC program has long been an important way of channeling capital to leading-edge, high-growth companies. In fact, some of the Nation's most successful corporations received early-stage financing from SBICs. Without it, they may not be the companies that they are today. The key to the program's success is leveraging Federal funds to increase the amount of private capital invested in such promising startup companies. By dramatically increasing the amount of capital in the SBIC program, the changes made by H.R. 2364 will result in significant small business investment. As such, I once again urge my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JUDY CHU of California

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To date, small business investment companies have assisted thousands of high-growth businesses, providing over $100 billion in capital. The key to the program's success is leveraging Federal funds to expand the amount of private capital invested in promising small firms. The Small Business Administration provides funding to qualified SBICs with expertise in certain sectors of the economy. SBICs then use their own funds and leverage from SBA to invest in small businesses. Their actions have facilitated over 3 million jobs total and nearly $6 billion per year of investment in domestic small employers. Yet this very success has pushed many SBIC licensees against the leverage caps, in turn reducing the flow of capital to worthy small businesses. Addressing the cap should be a priority to stabilize the financial landscape. Failure to do so leaves employers without capital to create jobs and expand our economy. In recent years, Congress has raised the leverage limits for SBICs to maximize the impact for family of funds licensees, but neglected to assist SBICs that manage just one company. That leverage cap remains at $150 million. H.R. 2333, the Small Business Investment Opportunity Act, would increase the cap to $175 million for a SBIC that manages just one company. This change will enhance the flow of capital to small businesses. I am happy to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add my appreciation to Chairman Chabot for his support in the process. I commend his leadership and Ranking Member Velazquez for their willingness to work in a bipartisan manner. I am pleased to serve on a committee that takes their responsibility seriously to help our Nation's small businesses prosper. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, expanding access to capital for small businesses has been a top priority for both sides of the aisle. The SBIC program fills the gap in the capital markets for businesses that have outgrown SBA's flagship 7(a) loan guarantee program, but remain too small or risky for the private equity industry. H.R. 2333 will help boost this program's success by changing how much leverage a SBIC can obtain from SBA. Specifically, this legislation is narrowly tailored to increase the leverage limit exclusively for SBICs that manage just one company. Increasing the capital will expand the flow of much-needed capital to small businesses. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JUDY CHU of California

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2056, the Microloan Modernization Act of 2017. This bill comes at an important time, because the nature of small business financing has evolved. No longer do many banks want to take on a business loan under $250,000, leaving much of the Nation's small employers empty-handed. Small entities don't always want or need large amounts of capital, and find small loans sufficient to meet their needs, or they lack the qualifications necessary to qualify for a bank loan. The SBA's Microloan program helps fill this gap by serving entrepreneurs who are not served by the private sector or SBA's 7(a) loan program. This program has provided millions of dollars in financing and technical assistance to small businesses and entrepreneurs since its inception in 1992. By providing loans to nonprofit intermediaries who, in turn, lend funds to the smallest of small businesses, the program helps borrowers streamline their operations, grow to profitability, and create new jobs. Microloans have proven to be incredibly valuable to prospective entrepreneurs and to communities who badly need greater economic opportunities. Despite the average microloan size being about $13,000, these loans have changed the face of small business lending and how small companies are funding their success. H.R. 2056 offers a much-needed change by increasing the microloan intermediary loan limit from $5 million to $6 million. It also raises the cap on grant funds that intermediaries can spend on technical assistance for prospective borrowers. Microloans are labor intensive and require staff time, expense, and risk. Technical assistance grants allows intermediaries to support personalized and intensive technical assistance for those microborrowers in their portfolio. Raising the cap will better serve potential business borrowers by ensuring they are ready for that next step: taking on a loan. These changes will increase the reach of the program and will ultimately go a long way toward creating opportunity for established enterprises and those who dream of going into business for themselves. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy).

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, SBA's Microloan program fulfills a critical need in the capital markets. It is a key resource for startup, newly established, and growing small businesses, many of which come from traditionally underserved markets, where personal and commercial credit are hard to come by. The Microloan Modernization Act of 2017 makes targeted reforms to assist more of these small businesses, by raising the amount that the SBA may commit to an intermediary and raising the cap on the amount of grant funding for technical assistance. These changes would further assist very small businesses to obtain loans and, in turn, provide them greater opportunity to create and retain the jobs that they need. With no significant effect on the Federal budget, I can think of no better time to make long-sought changes to improve the program. As such, I once again would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JUDY CHU of California

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3004, Kate's Law. This is politically driven legislation intended to create a fear of immigrants, even though repeated studies have shown immigrants commit less crimes. It enhances criminal penalties against immigrants, the vast majority of whom have come here peacefully to rejoin loved ones. All that, and it doesn't even do what it claims to, address the situation that led to the tragic death of Kate Steinle. There are those who might imply that this bill came from H.R. 15, the comprehensive bipartisan immigration bill that could have passed the House if allowed to vote on the floor, but this is not true. I know, because I was one of the lead sponsors of this bill. Our bill would have vastly improved the pathways to immigrate legally to the U.S. This bill makes no distinction between those immigrants trying to rejoin their families and those who may be prone to commit crimes. Instead, it treats all immigrants attempting to reenter the U.S. as criminals and significantly expands sentences for persons with misdemeanors such as driving without a license or loitering. Even asylum seekers, who present themselves at the border to escape deadly gang violence in their home country, could be subject to criminal prosecution. Turning our backs on asylum seekers and refugees doesn't make us safer. It makes us weak, and it is just plain wrong. We were horrified by Kate Steinle's murder, but the provisions in this bill would not have prevented it. The man charged with killing her was convicted for multiple illegal reentry offenses, serving more than 16 years in prison. He had been caught each time he attempted to cross the border. His presence in San Francisco was not due to lax penalties for reentry or weak border security. I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided legislation ripped from the pages of Donald Trump's mass deportation and anti-immigrant playbook. I include in the Record five documents from organizations that are opposed to this bill as well as the sanctuary bill, and that is the 15,000 immigration lawyers and law professors who are members of the American Immigration Lawyers Association; the 1.6 million members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME; the 2 million members of the Service Employees International Union, SEIU; the Asian Americans Advancing Justice; and the Fair Immigration Reform Movement. American Immigration Lawyers Association, Washington, DC, June 27, 2017. Statement of the American Immigration Lawyers Association Opposing the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004) Contact: Gregory Chen, Director of Government Relations. As the national bar association of over 15,000 immigration lawyers and law professors, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) opposes ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004). AILA recommends that members of Congress reject these bills which are scheduled to come before the House Rules Committee on June 27 and to the floor shortly thereafter. Though Judiciary Chairman Goodlatte stated that the bills will ``enhance public safety,'' they will do just the opposite: undermine public safety and make it even harder for local law enforcement to protect their residents and communities. In addition, the bills which were made public less than a week before the vote and completely bypassed the Judiciary Committee, include provisions that will result in violations of due process and the Fourth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution. At a time when over 9 out of 10 Americans support immigration reform and legalization of the undocumented, Republican leadership is asking the House to vote on enforcement-only bills that will lead to more apprehensions, deportations, and prosecutions of thousands of immigrants and their families who have strong ties to the United States. Instead of criminalizing and scapegoating immigrants, Congress should be offering workable reforms that will strengthen our economy and our country. The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003 H.R. 3003 would undermine public safety and interfere with local policing. H.R. 3003 would amend 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373 to prevent states or localities from establishing laws or policies that prohibit or ``in any way'' restrict compliance with or cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The bill dramatically expands 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373 which is more narrowly written and prohibits local law enforcement from restricting the sharing and exchange of information with federal authorities, but only with respect to an individual's citizenship or immigration status. Rather than empowering localities, the extremely broad wording of H.R. 3003 would strip localities of the ability to enact common-sense crime prevention policies that ensure victims of crime will seek protection and report crimes. The bill would also undermine public safety by prohibiting DHS from honoring criminal warrants of communities deemed ``sanctuary cities'' if the individual being sought by local law enforcement has a final order of removal. Under H.R. 3003, localities that fail to comply with federal immigration efforts are penalized with the denial of federal funding for critical law enforcement, national security, drug treatment, and crime victim initiatives, including the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), and Byrne JAG programs that provide hundreds of millions of dollars to localities nationwide. In an effort to force localities to engage in civil immigration enforcement efforts, including those against nonviolent undocumented immigrants, the bill would make it far more difficult for many localities, including large cities, to arrest and prosecute potentially dangerous criminals. The bill could even offer criminals a form of immunity, knowing that any crimes they commit in a designated sanctuary city would result, at most, in their removal from the country as opposed to criminal prosecution. H.R. 3003 would run afoul of constitutional safeguards in the Fourth Amendment. By prohibiting localities from restricting or limiting their own cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, H.R. 3003 effectively compels localities to honor ICE detainer requests--a controversial and constitutionally suspect practice that is nonetheless widely-used by ICE. Federal courts have found that ICE use of detainers violates the Fourth Amendment, and that localities may be held liable for honoring them. The bill also expands detainer authority by establishing that ICE may issue detainer requests for localities to hold undocumented immigrants for up to 96 hours--twice what is currently allowed--even if probable cause has not been shown. Courts have concluded that localities cannot continue detaining someone unless ICE obtains a warrant from a neutral magistrate who has determined there is probable cause, or in the case of a warrantless arrest, review by a neutral magistrate within 48 hours of arrest. The expansive provisions in H.R. 3003 would force localities to choose between detaining people in violation of the Constitution or being punished as a ``sanctuary city.'' Furthermore, this bill provides government actors and private contractors with immunity if they are sued for violating the Constitution. Provisions in this bill transfer the financial burden of litigation by substituting the federal government for the local officers as the defendant. If H.R. 3003 becomes law, American taxpayers would be stuck paying for lawsuits brought by those who are unjustly detained. The bill goes even further by creating a private right of action allowing crime victims or their family members to sue localities if the crime was committed by someone who was released by the locality that did not honor an ICE detainer request. H.R. 3003 would violate the Tenth Amendment. H.R. 3003 would compel states and localities to utilize their local law enforcement resources to implement federal civil immigration enforcement in violation of the Tenth Amendment's ``commandeering'' principle. The Tenth Amendment does not permit the federal government to force counties and cities to allocate local resources, including police officers, technology, and personnel, to enforce federal immigration law. The federal government also cannot withhold funds from localities refusing to participate in federal efforts if the programs affected are unrelated to the purpose of the federal program, or if the sanctions are punitive in nature. H.R. 3003 would expand detention without due process. H.R. 3003 would increase the use of detention without ensuring those detained have access to a bond determination. Under the bill, nearly anyone who is undocumented, including those who have overstayed their visa would be subject to detention without a custody hearing. The bill also establishes that DHS has the authority to detain individuals ``without time limitation'' during the pendency of removal proceedings. These provisions would dramatically expand the federal government's power to indefinitely detain individuals, and would likely result in ever growing numbers of undocumented immigrants held in substandard detention facilities. Kate's Law, H.R. 3004 H.R. 3004 would expand the already severe penalties in federal law for illegal reentry (INA Sec. 276; 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1326). The number of people prosecuted for illegal reentry has grown steadily to about 20,000 prosecutions each year, and such cases comprise more than one quarter of all federal criminal prosecutions nationwide. H.R. 3004 adds sentencing enhancements for people who are convicted of minor misdemeanors and people who have reentered multiple times but have no criminal convictions. This bill will not improve public safety and will undermine due process and protections for asylum seekers. H.R. 3004 would waste American taxpayer funds by imposing severe prison sentences upon thousands of people who pose no threat to the community and who have strong ties to the country and are trying to unite with their loved ones. H.R. 3004 would impose severe sentencing enhancements upon people with minor offenses. H.R. 3004 would add sentencing enhancements for minor misdemeanor convictions, including driving without a license and other traffic-related offenses. Under the current version of INA Sec. 276, if a person is charged with reentering the U.S. after being removed, their punishment is enhanced by up to ten years only if they have been convicted a felony or three or more misdemeanors involving drugs or violence. Under H.R. 3004 someone who has been convicted of any three misdemeanors regardless of severity would be subject to a term of up to ten years. This expansion would unfairly target large numbers of people who are not a threat to public safety but instead are trying to reunite with family members and have other strong ties to the United States. Currently half of all people convicted of illegal reentry have one child living in the country. Increasing sentences for illegal reentry would also waste taxpayer dollars, costing huge amounts of money to lock up non-violent people. H.R. 3004 would punish people who attempt to seek asylum at the border. H.R. 3004 expands the provisions of INA Sec. 276 to punish not only people who reenter the U.S. or attempt to reenter the U.S., but also people who cross or attempt to cross the border. The bill goes on to define ``crosses the border'' to mean ``the physical act of crossing the border, regardless of whether the alien is free from official restraint.'' That means that people who present themselves at ports of entry to request asylum and are taken into custody by CBP to await a fear screening would be subject to criminal charges based on a past removal, even though they are seeking refuge in the

Ms. JUDY CHU of California

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2847, the bill offered by my friend and colleague, Karen Bass, a tireless leader on foster youth and child welfare. I recently hosted an amazing young woman named Ruth during Foster Youth Shadow Day here on the Hill. The message Ruth wanted lawmakers to hear is that the obstacles she faces every day as a 19-year-old have not suddenly stopped now that she has aged out of foster care. Ruth has a resilient spirit and unstoppable determination, but she should not be left out in the cold as she pursues her education and her goal of helping other foster youth in the future. The Improving Services for Older Youth in Foster Care Act will help people like Ruth by making vital changes to the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, an important source of funding for foster youth. Currently, foster youth are only eligible for Chafee services if they are between the ages of 16 and 21. This bill expands access to the services provided by the program to include youth between the ages of 14 and 23. This is such a crucial change to the program since foster youth like Ruth face so many daunting challenges during the period of young adulthood as they transition toward independence and self- sufficiency. Providing essential services such as access to older mentors and role models, connections to employment opportunities, and education vouchers for foster youth after they reach the age of 18 are key sources of support for foster youth. This bill helps ensure that foster youth have the resources needed to become healthy, thriving adults. Thanks again to Representative Bass for her work on this bill.

Ms. JUDY CHU of California

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2857, the Supporting Families in Substance Abuse Treatment Act. I am pleased to cosponsor this bipartisan bill with Congresswoman Kristi Noem. This important legislation would encourage States to prioritize keeping families together when a parent is receiving substance abuse treatment. Under current law, States cannot receive Federal reimbursement if they choose to place both a parent and child in a family substance abuse treatment program. However, if that child is separated from their parent and placed with a foster family, the State can receive a match in Federal funding of 50 percent or more. This discrepancy effectively creates an incentive to separate children from their parents when one is receiving substance abuse treatment. However, studies have shown that keeping children in the care of their parents while they seek treatment can increase family bonding, child attachment, and family functioning, all while minimizing the trauma of separation for children. Today, solutions to parental drug abuse that prioritize the family are increasingly necessary as the opioid epidemic continues to place unprecedented strains on our communities. According to one estimate, drug overdoses may now be the leading cause of death among Americans under the age of 50. And as more parents require substance abuse treatment, more children are placed into foster care. In fact, studies found that between one-third and two-thirds of children enter foster care at least partly because of parental substance abuse. Now, we know that foster care does wonders for many children every day, but it may not be the best match for every child, and the decision should not come down to cost. In my district of Los Angeles, for instance, we have a program called the Exodus program, where formerly homeless families live in an on-site apartment complex and receive comprehensive services, including substance abuse treatment, counseling, child development, and family reunification services. Over the last 7 years, more than 80 percent of enrolled families have completed the program, and 95 percent have been able to keep their families together. Even though we know that parent-child substance abuse models like Exodus have shown promising results, current law does not financially incentivize States to utilize these programs where they are available. The Supporting Families in Substance Abuse Treatment Act would address this problem by ensuring that if parents and children are placed in these programs and stay together, the State can receive the full Federal match for the child's living costs. States would retain full authority to decide which placement is best, but that consideration will now be based on what is best for the child, not what is most affordable for the State. States should be given the option to use family-based treatment options without risking the loss of Federal foster care reimbursement. I urge my colleagues to consider our Nation's families and how this legislation may impact those with heads of household who are struggling with addiction. We can heal them without creating new trauma or pain for their children. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2857.

Ms. JUDY CHU of California

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this misguided bill. This bill will prevent people who have a legitimate right to healthcare from accessing it and will harm them, and it is for reasons that are completely unjustified. Currently, taxpayers must provide a Social Security number or tax I.D. number in order to qualify for a premium tax credit for healthcare. While the taxpayer's citizenship and immigration status are verified, they are given a 90-day grace period in which to prove their legal status. This grace period was put into place to ensure that people do not lose critical healthcare coverage and continue to have it while their paperwork is cleared. This bill would remove this safeguard and make it more difficult for numerous people to obtain health insurance. That could be a matter of life or death. This bill would certainly create barriers for immigrants who are here legally. It would also create barriers for U.S. citizens who have complications with their Social Security numbers. This includes people who recently change their name after marriage, have an error in their records, were born abroad, or were victims of human trafficking. It would also affect newborns, who do not get their Social Security number right away. Republicans claim that reports released by the GAO and the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee were proof of immigrants defrauding the government, but neither of these reports back up this claim. First of all, the GAO report was actually a test to identify vulnerabilities for fraud in the system. They did not find instances of immigrants committing fraud for healthcare subsidies. The Senate report found that 500,000 individuals did not complete their verification process and were, thus, deemed ineligible for subsidies. The author of today's bill takes this information and leaps to the conclusion that all those who did not complete the process were undocumented immigrants and were attempting to commit fraud, but there is nothing in either report to substantiate this. In fact, the ACA requires undocumented immigrants or anybody who does receive subsidies in error to pay back every cent on their tax return at the end of the year. This bill seeks to address a problem that does not exist. Instead, it would harm people by denying or delaying health insurance subsidies to people who need them. This is wrong. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Ms. JUDY CHU of California

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Kate called my office, worried for her son who is 1-year-old and was born with muscular dystrophy. He will need care for the rest of his life. Without the ban on preexisting conditions, the cost of insurance for her son will be astronomical. She is paralyzed with fear about how she is going to be able to care for him for the rest of his life. Under TrumpCare, the healthcare bill written for Donald Trump and not the American people, insurance companies will be able to charge Kate's son more because he has a preexisting condition. Imagine that. Her son's health care will be out of reach, his precious life endangered. That is unimaginably cruel, especially when we have a system in place right now that gets Kate's son the treatment he deserves. That is why I am opposing this bill today. I cannot support a measure that we know will cost sick people more money, will force families to pay higher premiums and deductibles, will force 24 million people off their insurance, and guts essential health benefits. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this horrific bill today.

Ms. JUDY CHU of California

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. 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.

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. 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.

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

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JUDY CHU of California

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. 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.

Ms. JUDY CHU of California

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. 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.

Ms. JUDY CHU of California

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. 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.

Ms. JUDY CHU of California

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. 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.

Ms. JUDY CHU of California

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. 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.