Darren Soto

Mr. SOTO

Mr. SOTO. Mr. Speaker, today we have a new Trump budget and more broken promises. If you recall on May 7, 2015, the President said: ``I was the first and only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.'' Broken promise number one. His budget cuts Medicaid, it cuts Medicare, it cuts Social Security. In The Washington Post on January 15, 2017, the President said: ``We are going to have insurance for everybody. Much less expensive and much better.'' This broken promise number two is that he cuts $1.4 trillion out of healthcare and covers 24 million less people, jacking up insurance rates for countless others. Broken promise number three to the Farm Bureau at ag.com on April 24, 2017: ``I support a strong safety net for our Nation's farmers.'' Yet he cuts $50 billion over 10 years from farm subsidies, including critical citrus greening research dollars for central Florida, where I represent. Then on September 28, 2016, The Washington Times, he says: ``I will be the greatest President for jobs that God's ever created.'' He is cutting the National Institutes of Health, critical research dollars by $5.8 billion, cutting NASA by $200 million, cutting National Science Foundation by $776 million. We see big talk and broken promises.

Mr. SOTO

Mr. SOTO. Madam Speaker, sabotage. A plot is afoot in Washington. It is time to sound the alarms. It is time to let the people know. It is time to ride like Paul Revere across our Nation and awaken Americans to this sinister scheme. President Trump is sabotaging the Affordable Care Act. Trump has threatened to cut subsidies to millions of Americans, creating more uncertainty today by stalling in court. He has refused to fund the high-risk corridors, causing insurance companies to flee States like Iowa and Kentucky. He has cut the public notices to keep those in need of healthcare in the dark. He has cut the signup period in half to prevent more Americans from signing up. Is sabotage destroying the healthcare market worth it? Is robbing millions of Americans of healthcare coverage worth it? Is that the price Trump is willing to pay for repeal? To give tax cuts to billionaires? Mr. Trump, ObamaCare works. If you break it, you own it. When you sabotage healthcare for millions of Americans, you are responsible. And the people ought to know.

Mr. SOTO

Mr. SOTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Direct Connect to Success Act. In my district and across the State of Florida, hundreds of thousands of striving students start in community colleges and automatically get admitted into our 4-year universities if they graduate with a minimum of 2.0. A 4- year degree opens up even more opportunities for these students, many of whom come from underserved and rural areas. This has been a nationally recognized program that is only available in a few States, but by expanding this simple, proven program nationwide, we will extend the opportunity to continue higher education to millions more hardworking, deserving students. We can all agree that government has a role to play in reducing barriers to success, and this guaranteed admission is a low-cost, highly efficient way to remove this big barrier. I ask you and others to join me in support of the Direct Connect to Success Act to create more opportunities to pursue the American Dream for all students.

Mr. SOTO

Mr. SOTO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin).

Mr. SOTO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are here today, more than 400 years after the first English settlers landed in what became Jamestown, Virginia, to finally establish a government-to-government relationship with the Indian tribes who greeted those settlers. The Virginia tribes that are recognized in this bill have treaties with the King of England that date back to the early 1600s. Their ancestors were there at Jamestown and facilitated the very founding and early development of our Nation. These tribes have been unable to claim their rightful Indian identity in relation to the Federal Government, due in great part to the machinations of one man, Walter Ashby Plecker, the State registrar for the Commonwealth in the early 20th century. Plecker, an avowed White supremacist, ran Virginia's Bureau of Vital Statistics for over 34 years. From 1912 to 1947, Plecker set out to rid the Commonwealth of any documents that recorded the existence of Indians or Indian tribes living therein. He was instrumental in ensuring passage of the Racial Integrity Act in 1924, making it illegal for individuals to classify themselves or their newborn children as Indian. But he went even further and spent decades removing the category of Indian from birth and marriage records. Although this paper genocide, as it has been termed, attempted to erase the Virginia Indians from history, the tribal members held firm to their culture and to their identity. In 1997, State legislation was passed to help correct the records of the Virginia Indians. Soon after, the Virginia Indians began their quest for Federal recognition. Passage of this legislation will finally put to end their 20-year struggle. I commend and thank our colleague from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) for bringing forth this bill. I also want to give special thanks to former Congressman Jim Moran, who spent several years in this body championing this legislation and tirelessly working toward its goals. Mr. Speaker, it is time to finally put this issue to rest and correct a historical injustice by extending Federal recognition to these six Virginia tribes. I urge all of my colleagues to join me and support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOTO. Mr. Speaker, it is time to right this wrong injustice and bring truth back into our history. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SOTO

Mr. SOTO. Mr. Speaker, big talk and broken promises, that is what we have seen. As Trump's first 100 days come to a close, we see desperate times are leading to desperate measures. First, there is a push to revive TrumpCare. Really? Twenty-four million Americans would be kicked off health insurance in the first year, and there would be 15 to 20 percent increases in premiums according to the Congressional Budget Office. The big change to get a compromise is taking away essential benefits and preexisting conditions, the foundation of making sure Americans have health care. Second, we see Trump's threats to defund the subsidies. This is a blatant violation of law. Seven million Americans would lose health care immediately if that happened. Third, we see Trump's threats to cut Medicaid and Medicare by $1 trillion. Block grants will mean cuts to senior's health care, cuts to children's health care. With these 100 days coming to a close, we see Trump as the least popular, least productive President in modern history. While Trump is breaking his promises, our constituents are depending on us to keep ours.

Mr. SOTO

Mr. SOTO. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 222.

Mr. SOTO

Mr. SOTO. Mr. Speaker, TrumpCare--a total disaster for America. Here it is by the numbers, per our own nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office: 24 million Americans will lose coverage, with 14 million Americans losing coverage in year one; 15 to 20 percent increases in health insurance premiums in year one; and if you are paying $1,700, you will be paying $14,600 in premium increases if you are a 64-year- old making $26,500 per year. But where does the money go? $592 billion in tax cuts for the rich. That is where it is going. The conclusions: TrumpCare robs health care from American working families to give tax cuts to the rich. So vote ``no'' on TrumpCare to vote ``yes'' on health care for America's working families.

Mr. SOTO

Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, we send our servicemen and -women overseas in harm's way to protect our country because we know that freedom isn't free. So it is fundamental, as we, with such vigor, ask them to go to the battlefield, that we protect them when they are off the battlefield. And it is fundamental that, when they return, they have a world-class hospital system. Now, today we begin consideration of H.R. 1367, which is exciting because it is a bipartisan bill to improve the VA's authority to hire, train, and retain physicians and other critical staff in the Veterans Health Administration. Over the last 5 years, we have seen more than 2 million veterans enroll in the VA healthcare system, and we believe--both parties believe that nothing should stand in the way of any veteran having confidence in and access to care and benefits they earned and deserve. I represent the central Florida area, and we are so honored to have a brand new Orlando VA, in a high-growth area, and the need is great. I was also honored to be able to have an office right across the street from the VA hospital that we just opened up last week, to be in proximity and to help our veterans. But I can tell you, having met with some of our veterans already, we are looking at 3- to 6-month waits, even in a new facility. A gentleman, who I will refer to as Mr. Smith so that I don't divulge his personal information, came to me yesterday, and he had issues with a podiatrist. He was not able to see them over the next couple of weeks. And in his goat farm in my district, he is unable to pursue his gainful employment, and we are trying to get him in over the next 2 weeks, but it could be 3 to 4 weeks. So we need to stand together to restore trust and accountability and fill these positions. And so I applaud both parties, and I am excited for the Veterans' Affairs Committee to take this bold action to recruit and retain the most talented workforce, which is well-needed to provide quality and timely medical care for our Nation's veterans, for those in central Florida, Florida, and beyond.

Mr. SOTO

Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chair, there is a sanction in place. You have to remove your claim or your assertion that is in question, and there is the cost of time that any attorney has to put in. But at the end of the day, we have already been down this road and it has failed. Now all we are going to see is more litigation again without the requisite increase in funding to our Federal courts. And so what we are going to see is anybody who sued--whether you are a plaintiff suing or defendant--is going to now have far more complex, dual-track litigation, and that is going to increase costs on businesses and on individuals who are facing litigation in our Federal courts. I believe we need to keep the lessons learned from the past, and I urge Members to adopt my amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reinstate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 11(c)(2) safe harbor provision, which allows parties to avoid penalties, by withdrawing or correcting the claims within 14 days from when the alleged violation of rule 11(b) becomes known, anytime up until the end of the discovery period. This bill would force attorneys to assess their case blindly as it stands. Every attorney knows to assess their case based upon an objective set of facts regarding the situation. A good attorney would never overpromise a cause of action, but this bill prevents even a fair assessment of a case. A full and accurate analysis of the merits of the case must be done on day one, because this bill requires mandatory sanctions with no grace period. We have tried this already, and it did not work. This bill will eliminate rule 11(c)(2)'s safe harbor provision, which currently allows the target of a rule 11 motion for sanctions to withdraw or correct the paper claim, defense, contention, or denial that is the subject of the motion for sanctions within 21 days after service. Between 1938 and 1983, there were only 19 rule 11 filings. In 1983, rule 11 was changed to the standard being proposed by this bill. In the 10 years without this safe harbor provision, nearly 7,000 motions for sanctions were made. A 1989 study showed that roughly one-third of all Federal civil lawsuits involved rule 11 satellite litigation, and approximately one-fourth of all those cases on the docket involved rule 11 actions that did not result in sanctions. Thus, attorneys had a dual job: one to try the case, and the other to try the opposing counsel. We can't go back to a failed system. The amount of sanction litigation that clogged the system was so extensive that in 1993, a mere 10 years after this failed legal experiment began, a safe harbor provision was established to unclog the system, and it worked. Since then, the amount of rule 11 sanction satellite litigation has come down, and the courts are now better able to focus on the case at hand. In committee, Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island, recommended the reimplementation of the 21-day safe harbor provision. Instead of following this commonsense proposal, the committee rejected it by an 18-4 vote. I believe such an important provision needs to be revisited, but with a compromise. That is why I drafted this amendment that offers a 14-day safe harbor provision; and as a measure to protect further abuse, my safe harbor amendment is only available prior to the completion of discovery, yet another attempt to have a compromise here. The intent for this discovery provision is that an attorney, during discovery, may realize a flaw in their case. Such a revelation should allow an attorney to correct or withdraw their claim without having the fear of having mandatory automatic sanctions imposed on them. Instead, this bill, as written, immediately places sanctions on the mistaken lawyer. This is well-intentioned, but it does not acknowledge the realities of litigation or the legal process. In the real world, clients can easily misrepresent a situation to their counsel, and the truth won't be known until discovery. This bill will have a stifling effect on the legal community and will lead to denied justice because attorneys will not be willing to take a case unless it is a guaranteed win. We should take the lessons learned from the 1983 experiment and preserve the safe harbor provision to protect well-intended plaintiffs' attorneys and not stack the deck against those who seek justice. Mr. Chair, I urge support for my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOTO

Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would create an exception to this bill for instances of public health risks, including byproducts of hydraulic fracturing, well stimulation, or any water contamination. Fracking, especially in my home State of Florida, is dangerous, and its effects can be far-reaching. Just last week, a State senate committee voted unanimously to ban the practice in our State, and the bill continues to move through. Pollution can reach our aquifers that provide drinking water to millions. Sometimes concerned citizens must go to court to stop this. Access to justice is a fundamental American right, and we must protect it. Sometimes in Washington, up is down and right is wrong. This, unfortunately, is the case with the so-called Innocent Party Protection Act. This bill is incredibly harmful to those injured by corporate wrongdoers. If someone drinks poisoned water as a result of fracking, well stimulation, or general water contamination, this bill will make it harder for them to get justice for their injuries. By restricting access to State courts, the courts that are closest to the people, this bill would deny justice. The bill will deny plaintiffs their right to choose a State court forum for their claims and will instead allow defendant companies that negligently pollute water to drag a case out, which will drive up costs and increase burdens for plaintiffs by removing it to Federal court. Then, once a case is in Federal court, instead of litigating over the merits of the case, the courts will argue over the various requirements that this bill establishes. Placing a higher threshold that a plaintiff must satisfy to get the case sent back to State court is unnecessary and unduly burdensome. The amendment I am offering would restore access to justice. It would allow people whose water has been contaminated by fracking and related activities to seek damages from corporate wrongdoers. This amendment isn't just a hypothetical exercise. Here in my hand I hold 18 cases involving fracking. They are 18 cases where fracking led to injury. In 10 of these cases, plaintiffs sued in State court, raising State claims, yet defendants removed the case to Federal court, only to have the Federal court remand the cases back to the State due to lack of diversity jurisdiction. Thus, I hold here 10 cases where a remand back to State court would be denied under this bill. If this bill had been enacted, I hold here 10 cases that would have been denied justice. Four of these 18 hydraulic fracturing cases are still pending. Will we deny justice for these four cases? For these plaintiffs and for future plaintiffs, I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment and safeguard justice to all who drink water. Mr. Chair, I urge support of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, water is not arbitrary. The right to clean water is not arbitrary. It is essential. Just ask the plaintiffs in these cases. Just ask the people of Flint. Just ask victims of fracking across our Nation, which is why we in Florida are looking to ban the practice. So this isn't just some arbitrary area. This is an essential area that is affecting issues right now throughout the Nation. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. SOTO

Mr. SOTO. Mr. Speaker, I want to make a statement regarding the passage of H.R. 1301, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2017. In the 114th Congress, an amendment was offered and accepted by voice vote to H.R. 5293, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2017, that moved $5 million from the Operation and Maintenance, Defense--Wide account to the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army account's Advanced Concepts and Simulation program. H.R. 1301, maintained a $3 million increase to the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army account's Advanced Concepts and Simulation program. These funds allow universities to focus on advancing component technologies required for real time modeling and simulation training. A promising use of this program is the development of a more effective protocol for treating combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder for active duty, retired, and discharged personnel and their families. The use of modeling and simulation technology has enabled new innovative and immersive therapies to be developed, which can extend trauma management therapy protocol. I support the use of modeling and simulation and thank my colleagues for their shared support.

Mr. SOTO

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

Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, even if we included motions to dismiss in the stay, which are at the beginning of the case because they are dispositive motions, there are still motions to strike that are left in this bill. After surviving a motion to dismiss, motions to strike are regularly filed. Anybody who has had any time in the courtroom know they can be filed over and over and over again. There is no limit of them under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So simply by filing motion to strike after motion to strike, a defendant can continue to delay justice; and justice delayed is justice denied. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike section 1721 of this Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017. The irony of section 1721 is it unfairly subjects class action plaintiffs to an inevitable deluge of prolonged delay. A stay of discovery means no depositions. It means injured people will not get essential documents. It means victims will not be entitled to the names of necessary witnesses and more as long as a motion that may dispose of the case is pending. There is nothing to prevent a corporation from filing motion after motion to obstruct a victim's path to justice. Numerous consumer, civil rights, environmental, labor, and other public interest groups oppose this bill because it builds in an automatic stay of discovery in the district court whenever an alleged wrongdoer files any one of a list of motions, including common motions like a motion to strike, a motion to dismiss, and a motion to dispose of class action allegations. There will be no end to the filing of these motions. This is an invitation for gamesmanship and delay and will deprive judges of the ability to properly manage their cases. The framers of the bill want you to believe that plaintiffs are greedy, undeserving people who want to hinder small business. This could not be further from the truth. If there are big settlements, it is because the damage to the victims was heinous. Is there any doubt that huge corporations would file motion after motion to obstruct these victims from getting the facts they need? Class actions are critical for enforcement of laws prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing, education, and access to public areas and services. At the end of the day, if we are trying to reduce litigation, why have this glaring loophole where someone continues to file motions to stop ordinary discovery from going forward? Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOTO

Mr. SOTO. Madam Speaker, last night our Republican colleagues finally revealed their secret healthcare bill, and it is clear that TrumpCare doesn't care. Here are the top five reasons why: Number one, TrumpCare cuts Medicaid. It creates block grants to States that will lead to less care, including forcing seniors out of nursing homes and reducing health care for the poor. Number two, TrumpCare eliminates healthcare subsidies. In its place, it creates substandard tax cuts that will ensure millions of Americans can no longer afford health insurance. Number three, TrumpCare favors the rich. It provides a tax giveaway for the rich, while leaving the middle class with less access to care. Number four, TrumpCare hurts our hospitals. It kicks people off of insurance, guaranteeing hospitals, employer plans, and taxpayers will ultimately foot the bill. Number five, TrumpCare defunds Planned Parenthood. This will leave millions of women without health care. In summary, TrumpCare doesn't care, and it won't work.

Mr. SOTO

Mr. SOTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to help smash Zika and other vector-borne diseases. It is my privilege to reintroduce the bipartisan Strengthening Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act, or SMASH Act. H.R. 1310 has over 14 cosponsors already, both Democrats and Republicans, coming together to tackle this great challenge. As we saw last year, in Florida, Puerto Rico, across Latin America, and beyond, mosquito-borne diseases are constantly evolving and can quickly have new and devastating consequences. We thought we knew Zika, but then it changed. So we have to stay a step ahead. That is what the SMASH Act does. It keeps us ahead of perennial threats like Zika, West Nile, and other diseases by expanding programs for mosquito-borne and vector-borne disease surveillance and control. Investing and fighting all these diseases together will protect the health of countless Americans and save us money down the road. The scientists and public health experts at the Centers for Disease Control in my home State know the tools they need. Colleagues, let's get together and give it to them.

Mr. SOTO

Mr. SOTO. Mr. Speaker, this is a simple issue: Do we want to make workplaces safer? Do we want to keep workers from getting hurt on the job? Of course, we do. In order to protect workers, we need good data on where injuries are happening so we can work with employers to stop them. Sometimes the other side says commonsense protections like this are too expensive or they kill jobs or they stifle innovation. None of those is even remotely true here. The protections this resolution would take away cost nothing. Responsible employers are already keeping these records. That is why the coalition opposing this resolution includes workers rights advocates and a whole lot of other folks like public health practitioners. These are not political people. These are just people who work every day to help Americans lead safe, healthy lives. This is not about President Obama or power grabs. It is about protecting the American worker. The 6-month period is a setup which will lead to less enforcement. Rather than eliminating the rule, let's codify it and use the information we collect to continue to evolve our laws to protect workers. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''