Grace Meng

Ms. MENG

Ms. MENG. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Ms. MENG. I am opposed.

Ms. MENG. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. MENG. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. The purpose of my motion is simple. It says that the restrictions in the underlying bill do not apply to settlement agreements that ultimately result in lower prices for lifesaving medical devices. Mr. Speaker, Americans are hurting across this country. Far too often, there have been companies that have sought to profit off of the most vulnerable among us through monopoly-like action and power. When that happens, Mr. Speaker, particularly when it comes to medical devices, it is the Federal Government's role to ensure that consumers are protected, to ensure that all Americans have access to devices they need, particularly when it is a matter of life and death. In my opinion, we have to look no further than the actions of the maker of EpiPens, the device every parent of a child with severe allergies is aware of. When a child goes into shock, this is the device that will save his or her life. Unfortunately, EpiPen's maker, Mylan, has chosen to systematically inflate its profits over the past several years without reinvesting those profits for further business activities such as research and development. Instead, we have seen CEO pay raised astronomically, and quarterly profits skyrocket, all off the backs of vulnerable Americans. This is wrong. It is so wrong that we have taken notice of these actions, and Congress is investigating whether or not violations of antitrust law have occurred with respect to Mylan. If we find that it has, and DOJ or another government agency agrees, let's not hamstring the settlement that may ultimately be reached with Mylan. Clearly, we are not the jurors in this case, and we are not structuring the terms of any eventual, possible deal. But let's not preclude the agencies seeking to protect us from reaching a deal that may solve problems for Americans in need, a deal that may actually reduce the cost of lifesaving medical devices. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this motion. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MENG

Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Calvert for supporting this amendment as well as my friend, Ranking Member McCollum. Thank you to you both. Mr. Chair, this amendment reduces the Smithsonian Institution account on page 120, line 23, of the bill by $300,000, and then increases it by the same amount. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center receives a $300,000 increase over last year's enacted funding amount, consistent with the President's request in his fiscal year 2017 budget. The Congressional Budget Office scored this amendment as budget neutral, and more than enough money exists in the $515,000 increase to the Smithsonian's `Administration' account, which funds the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center, to accomplish the goal of my amendment. Frankly speaking, I do not care where the Committee, or the Board of Regents, wish to reallocate funds from, I only wish to seek assurance that the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center will receive the $300,000 increase it so justly deserves. Thank you again, Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum, for agreeing to this funding level moving forward. According to the Smithsonian's budget justification to Congress, these additional funds will be used to provide for the salaries and benefits of one associate program director, one curator for Asian Pacific studies, and one education coordinator. With the addition of three additional staff, the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center will be able to continue to serve as the leading voice on the Asian Pacific American experience, as well as host events in cities across the country. Mr. Chair, I believe the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center deserves our support, and I thank everyone in this Chamber this evening for agreeing with me.

Ms. MENG

Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak on amendment number 63 which has been included in the first en bloc package. My amendment seeks to increase funding for the Department of Defense Peer-Reviewed Cancer Research Program by $8 million in order to fight bladder cancer, brain cancer, colorectal cancer, liver cancer, lymphoma, melanoma and other skin cancers, mesothelioma, pancreatic cancer, stomach cancer, and cancer in children, adolescents, and young adults. I'd like to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky for their support of this measure, and for accepting it into this package. It is my hope that this additional funding will be used to contribute to the creation of a cure for these horrific cancers. Every year, millions of Americans die far too early from these diseases. Perhaps, however, our actions here today will lead to a world where future generations will not have to know the pain of such losses. Thank you to each of my colleagues who supported this measure, and to the many groups who lent their support as well--including: Action to Cure Kidney Cancer, American Brain Tumor Association, American Urological Association, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, Bladder Cancer Action Network, Fight Colorectal Cancer, Melanoma Research Foundation, and Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. We may not know the end of cancer in our lifetimes, but I pray we can find it during my children's. I submit the following letter: June 15, 2016. Dear Member of Congress, The undersigned organizations strongly support the recent approval by the Senate Committee on Appropriations of $60 million for the Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program (PRCRP) in their version of the fiscal year 2017 Defense Appropriations Act. We are therefore encouraged to learn of an amendment that will be offered by Representative Grace Meng (D-NY) to the House version of the Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2017 (H.R. 5293) to move funding for the PRCRP closer to the Senate level. Specifically, the Meng amendment increases by $8 million the $30 million appropriation for the Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program (PRCRP) included in the bill. Funded at $50 million in fiscal year 2016, the PRCRP funds innovative, cutting-edge research on a variety of cancers. Since Fiscal Year 2009, the PRCRP has funded innovative basic, applied, and translational cancer research to support our nation's military service personnel, their families, and the American public. Members of the military are exposed to hazardous environments due to the nature of their service and deployments and are therefore at risk for the development of many types of cancers. Funding innovative and translational research, the PRCRP focuses on the gaps in cancer research with respect to unique situations and military environments. As approved by the House Committee on Appropriations, H.R. 5293 provides $30 million for the PRCRP and includes as eligible areas of study: bladder cancer, brain cancer, colorectal cancer, listeria vaccine for cancer, liver cancer, lymphoma, melanoma and other skin cancers, mesothelioma, pancreatic cancer, stomach cancer, and cancer in children, adolescents, and young adults. House approval of the Meng amendment would bring the PRCRP funding level closer to the $60 million approved by the Senate Committee on Appropriations in their version of the Defense Appropriations. We hope that you will support this amendment to ensure the strongest possible funding level is included in the House-Senate conference for the final enacted version of the Defense Appropriations Act. Thank you for your consideration of this important request. Sincerely, Action to Cure Kidney Cancer, American Brain Tumor Association, American Urological Association, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, Bladder Cancer Action Network, Fight Colorectal Cancer, Lymphoma Research Foundation, Melanoma Research Foundation, Pancreatic Cancer Action Network.

Ms. MENG

Ms. MENG. Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to be here today to celebrate the 100th anniversary of women serving in Congress. Thank you for allowing this legislation to come to the floor. I also thank my friend and colleague, Representative Zinke, for offering this legislation with me. His support has been instrumental in ensuring the consideration of this bill, and I am deeply grateful to him. A hundred years ago this November, the people of Montana elected Jeannette Rankin to the United States House of Representatives. She was the first woman elected to Congress and was elected before passage of the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote. Jeannette Rankin was a trailblazer her entire life. In 1902, she graduated from the University of Montana with a degree in biology. Afterward, she would become active in the women's suffrage movement, moving to New York City and assisting in the founding of the New York Woman Suffrage Party and working for the National American Woman Suffrage Party. She would return to Montana and was elected to office in the congressional election of 1916. Upon winning, she declared: ``I may be the first woman Member of Congress, but I won't be the last.'' I am happy to say she was right. In recognition of Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin's many accomplishments and in celebration of the centennial anniversary of her election to Congress, Representative Zinke and I introduced the 100 Years of Women in Congress Act. Because Jeannette Rankin was a woman of science more than 100 years before our current push to have more women enter STEM fields, we felt it appropriate to rename the Department of Agriculture's Women and Minorities in STEM Fields Grant Program after her. This program currently supports collaborative research projects at institutions of higher education, which seek to increase the participation of women and minorities from rural areas in STEM fields. It will continue to do so into the future, but now it will also recognize the many contributions Jeannette Rankin made to American life. Mr. Speaker, thank you again for allowing this legislation to come to the floor today, and I thank Congressman Zinke for partnering with me on it. I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure.

Ms. MENG

Ms. MENG. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that H.R. 4238 has made it to the House floor today. As you know, this bill will strike the term ``Oriental'' from Federal law in the last two places it is used to refer to a person. This legislation is long overdue, and I am thankful for your consideration and, I hope, passage of it. I would like to thank my colleague and friend, Representative Ed Royce, for being an original author of this bill with me, as well as every member of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. I would also like to thank Representative Butterfield and Representative Sanchez, chairs of the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Hispanic Caucus, respectively, for cosponsoring this legislation. I would also like to personally thank Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Pallone for shepherding this legislation through the Energy and Commerce Committee, as well as Representatives Whitfield and Rush, who moved it through the Energy and Power Subcommittee. We are all aware that there are chapters of American history that are not perfect. This very body, for example, once found it appropriate to pass laws such as the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Geary Act. But we also found it appropriate to repeal them. Times change, what is acceptable changes, and this Congress more often than not yields to that change. Toward that end, the time has come to repeal certain terms from Federal law that many in the Asian American community would find offensive. In the same way I would not want either of my children to be referred to as ``Orientals'' by their teachers at school, I hope we can agree that such terms no longer deserve a place in Federal law. Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing this legislation to the floor for a vote today. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important measure.

Ms. MENG

Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. MENG. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service law enforcement officers to be placed in diplomatic posts abroad in an effort to combat the illegal killing of African elephants. Honestly, this is an activity in which the Fish and Wildlife Service already engages. What the underlying bill does in section 1004, however, which I think is commendable, is explicitly authorizes this activity in law for the first time. Unfortunately, I feel the authorization is overly narrow because it allows only one FWS officer to be placed in a single country at a time. I think this was likely a drafting oversight and simply wish to allow more than one FWS officer to be assigned to a foreign country at a time. Let me be clear. This amendment does not mandate that multiple officers be sent abroad. It does not authorize any additional funds for these activities. It does not require an increase in any way on the number of FWS officers placed abroad. It simply allows more than one FWS officer to be placed in a single country at any given time. In reality, this amendment could, should we wish it, result in a net decrease in the number of FWS law enforcement agents placed abroad, resulting in lowered costs to the U.S. Government for these activities. Imagine a scenario in which elephant poaching and ivory trafficking was running rampant in 20 different nations and we wished to assist in the combating of these activities by leveraging the expertise and experience of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officers. As written, we would only be allowed to place one officer in each country, for a total of 20 total officers deployed internationally. What if the Secretary of the Interior determined, however, that formulating a task force of five specialists, who would be deployed jointly, as needed, would be the best possible course of action to combat the poaching of African elephants? As written, the SHARE Act would force this task force to be split up and housed in five different African nations. The amendment before us, however, would permit the entire task force to be housed under one roof. At the end of the day, housing the entire task force in a single location could be much more effective strategically and could result in significant savings to the U.S. Government if it is housed in the nation with the lowest cost of living. Mr. Chair, no matter how one may feel about the broader bill before us, I feel that section 1004 of the bill is a worthwhile section. I hope you will support my amendment seeking to improve it. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MENG

Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, this amendment would require HUD to publish model guidelines for minimum heating requirements for public housing units. Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, some public housing agencies across this country have struggled with the fundamental task of providing adequate housing and heating to low-income residents. Less than 2 months ago, the New York Daily News and Reuters published a series of articles about tenants at the Frederick Douglass Houses in New York City, complaining that they were without heat for several frigid evenings in a row. In response to these complaints, New York City public advocate Letitia James and Legal Services New York City filed a lawsuit on behalf of the tenants, and in their filing they quote a November 25 email from Robert Knapp, head of the New York City Housing Authority's heating management services unit, stating: NYCHA official policy . . . is heat shut off between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. when the outside temperatures are above 20 degrees. When the outside temperature falls below 20 degrees, heat is given through the night. Frankly, this is appalling. Many Democratic Representatives from New York City agreed with me, and that is why we submitted a letter, led by my good friends and colleagues, Representatives Engel and Rangel, to the head of NYCHA, urging it to completely abandon the current heating policy. That letter was submitted to NYCHA--the largest housing agency in the country, overseeing more than 400,000 residents living in 2,500 buildings--more than a month ago, and we have yet to receive a response. That is why I have come to the floor today. While it is not in our authority to mandate what a building's heating requirements should be in any particular city across this vast country, clearly some help is needed. Apparently, some local agencies might need official guidance from HUD outlining the fact that it is a good idea to turn the heat on at night when the temperature outside is below freezing. I was hopeful things would not come to this point, but right now, in the middle of winter, when almost one in five public housing residents in my city are age 62 or older, and more than a quarter of them are children under the age of 18, I feel that this matter could ultimately be one of life or death. We do not want to return to an age in which tenants of local public housing authorities are forced to revert to heating their homes with stoves. Many of us here are all too familiar with the unfortunate tragedies that occur as a result of that practice and the fires that can also occur when residents are forced to rely on individual space heaters. For not only the safety of public housing residents across America, but also their humanity, heating standards must be improved. It is my hope that this amendment today, which mandates that HUD produce model heating guidelines, will assist in this endeavor. It is also my hope that all of my colleagues will support this effort. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MENG. I thank the Chairman for his support.

Ms. MENG. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

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

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

Ms. MENG

Ms. MENG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Korean American Day, a day that commemorates the first Korean immigrants to arrive in the United States on January 13, 1903. On that day, the S.S. Gaelic brought 56 men, 21 women, and 25 children across the Pacific Ocean from Korea to America in search of a better future. On Korean American Day, our Nation celebrates a community that has made tremendous contributions to this country. Since 1903, the Korean American population has grown to almost 2 million and has become intricately woven in the fabric of our country. Korean Americans have made contributions in all aspects of American life. They are our servicemembers, our doctors, businessmen, teachers, and community leaders. They are our neighbors and, most importantly, our friends. For centuries, Korean immigrants and their descendants have helped build America's prosperity. Their culture enriches our lives in so many ways as they uphold the important values of community, hard work, and family that make America strong. I am proud to be a part of New York State, which has the second largest Korean American population in the U.S. I am honored to join my colleagues and friends in celebrating all that the Korean Americans have done for our great Nation.

Ms. MENG

Ms. MENG. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express strong support for H.R. 3231, the Federal Intern Protection Act of 2015. Madam Speaker, internships are increasingly considered a resume necessity for entry-level positions in both the public and private sector. More and more, businesses, organizations, and government agencies consider internships a prerequisite experience to full-time employment. In fact, on college campuses across this country, career service officers push their students to obtain competitive internships because they provide valuable professional experiences and are considered essential. What we often forget is that unpaid interns are amongst the most vulnerable of workers. They need these internships to succeed in their careers. Yet, they are powerless to protect themselves from discrimination and sexual harassment. Facing these challenges can be devastating to young interns at the beginning of their careers. One year ago, a brave and intelligent young woman, Christina, came to my district office to talk to me about her experiences as an unpaid intern. Christina had faced sexual harassment. She had no legal recourse, but she refused to stay silent. She came to my office with a fellow college student, Anna. They told me about the experiences of many young college students who had faced sexual harassment as unpaid interns. I stand here on their behalf today because we can do something about this. State legislatures across this country have started to listen. New York, Oregon, Illinois, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, D.C., and New York City have all passed some form of protection for unpaid interns. Unpaid internships in Federal agencies, in particular, are coveted and competitive positions. The Federal Intern Protection Act of 2015 directly addresses this vulnerability by extending existing Federal protections under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to unpaid interns working for the Federal Government. We can provide vulnerable interns in the Federal Government with the protections they deserve. I would like to thank my colleague, Representative Cummings, for his leadership on this issue. I also thank Representative Scott of Virginia and Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton and their staff for all of their hard work.

Ms. MENG

Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, this bipartisan amendment is simple. It seeks to strike the term ``Oriental'' from Federal law in the last two remaining instances it is used to refer to a person within the Federal law. I thank my colleague and my friend, Chairman Royce, for cosponsoring this amendment with me. Mr. Chair, in the same way, I would not want either of my children to be referred to as ``Oriental'' by their teacher at school, I hope we can all agree that the term ``Oriental'' no longer deserves a place in Federal law. Toward that end, this amendment strikes the offensive term from 42 U.S.C. 7141 and 42 U.S.C. 6705, two sections of Federal law written in the 1970s that fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Congress once found it appropriate to pass laws such as the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Geary Act, but we also found it appropriate to repeal them. Times change. What is acceptable changes, and this Congress more often than not yields to that change. Mr. Chair, I call on my colleagues to join me in striking the legal use of outdated terms that many in the community would find offensive. I thank the Committee on Rules for making this amendment in order. I thank the chairman for allowing me time to speak on what is an important issue to my district, and I thank, again, Mr. Royce for his support and his cosponsorship of this amendment. I urge support for the amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his kind words. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MENG

Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, this bipartisan amendment is simple. It is identical to language that appeared in the Senate version of the transportation bill that required improved data collection on the types of child restraint systems in use whenever a child is present during a car crash. I am honored to have Representative Love as a cosponsor of this amendment, and I thank her for her support. Mr. Chair, I know that we have 81 amendments to work through today and a long evening ahead of us; so, in the interest of time, I will keep my remarks brief. The amendment I am offering merely requires revisions to the crash investigation data collection system of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in an effort to save children's lives. The more we know about the type of child restraint system used, how it was used, and the outcome of that use, the more we will be able to avert future tragedies. After 3 years of collection of the data required by this amendment, the Secretary will be required to submit a report to Congress on the performance of various child restraint systems. It is my hope that we will join together at that time to craft new legislation that addresses what we learn. Again, this is a bipartisan amendment, Mr. Chair. I believe it is a good amendment, and I think we have an opportunity to save children's lives. I urge support for this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MENG

Ms. MENG. Mr. Speaker, I rise to welcome President Park Geun-hye to the United States for her state visit next week. The United States and the Republic of Korea enjoy a warm friendship built on a commitment to security, joint economic development, cultural exchange, and the democratic process. This year marks the 65th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean war. Korea has transformed itself in six decades from a war-torn economy into the 13th largest economy in the world, and it represents one of America's greatest foreign policy success stories. President Park's visit will reaffirm our strong bilateral relationship at an important time, as our countries work together to address mutual security threats and improve regional security. President Park's approach to North Korea and her focus on reuniting families who have been separated by the Korean war has given renewed hope to many Korean Americans in the United States. I am sure her visit will lead to new areas of cooperation between our countries.