Keep Huawei on the Entity List Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1996.

I want to begin by commending my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter, for the way that he has approached this legislation. He is incorporating a lot of ideas from Members all across this Chamber and from across the country. He has doggedly pursued this legislation for many years, and I want to commend him for that.

I also want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Stivers and Mr. Joyce of Ohio, for the way they have approached this bill. I think this is a testament to constructive criticism of a bill and it becoming better as a result of it.

Let me say, regardless of your position on this bill, I do think the fact remains that cannabis is a prohibited substance under schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.

Let me further state that, by enacting this legislation, we are effectively kneecapping law enforcement in legalizing money laundering. These are concerns that I have, that still remain.

By effectively legalizing money laundering, we are inserting a new level of risk in our financial system. We are preventing our legal entities from doing their jobs. We are encouraging bad actors and placing our financial institutions at risk.

Rather than dealing with the issues of cannabis and the question of its Federal legalization, we are dealing with a component of the challenge, which is the banking of it, and it is a challenge. I think we are adding a new risk to our banking system and our anti-money laundering reforms that we passed just in January of this year. That seems counterintuitive to me.

For years, Congress has worked to reform our anti-money laundering laws. Now, in one fell swoop, we are undoing a lot of that hard work and we are going to make it easier for money launderers.

If you want to help the system, if you want to give financial institutions the certainty and security they want and need to do the job with the cannabis industry, where it is legalized in these

States, we should debate the merits of cannabis remaining a schedule I substance, not pass a bill that skirts around the substance of the issue.

This bill we are considering today is one of the biggest changes to U.S. drug policy, yet it was done with little debate this Congress. There has been a lot of debate overall in this Congress, far more than the Senate has even had, on the question of cannabis.

This bill, which is really the first step in legalizing cannabis at the Federal level, was reported out of the Financial Services Committee last Congress, and it is a committee that really has no jurisdiction over the Controlled Substances Act. We only had one hearing featuring one panel of witnesses. We haven't had a hearing this Congress to discuss changes over the last 2 years, let alone a markup to discuss any changes that might strengthen or impact the bill.

For example, late last year, Congress passed a sweeping bipartisan anti-money laundering piece of legislation. These reforms include prohibitions on the concealment of sources of assets in monetary transactions; a prohibition, I will add, that comes with a steep penalty of up to 10 years in prison and up to $1 million in fines.

If we were doing our due diligence, we would have done a deeper discussion on how these new AML Act changes would impact banks working with cannabis industries as clients instead of me raising this issue at the eleventh hour on the floor, which is what I have got to resort to.

In addition to this concern, I believe I have voiced many other concerns, including our need to better comprehend and address the supervisory and regulatory issues that would result from enactment of

Mr. Speaker, this letter raises a number of concerns, including:

What changes to our banking laws are necessary to implement the SAFE Banking Act, a number of questions that I have;

What agencies are going to be necessary for this working group to actually ensure that the letter of this law is adhered to by the executive branch, that they actually follow it as the writer of the legislation intends;

How the executive branch will interpret the ``know your customer'' rules enacted in the SAFE Banking Act, compared to what we enacted just 2 months ago, 3 months ago;

How we would deal with suspicious activity reporting requirements under the new guidelines of the SAFE Banking Act, compared to what we enacted at the end of last year;

How we deal with currency transaction reports under this law, compared to what we just passed; and

What are the implications on nonbank financial firms as well, such as insurers and investment companies.

Mr. Speaker, I think the author of the bill intends for insurers and investment companies and banks to have the same qualifications when they are handling money that has touched the cannabis industry. I think that is the intent.

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to understand whether or not the administration would follow that intent that the author has stated clearly in debates here on the House floor last Congress and this Congress and, furthermore, whether or not Federal, State, and local law enforcement will have a similar interpretation that the writer of this bill says is his intent, that Federal law enforcement should hear the voice of Congress and hear this step to legalization which is part of this bill.

I do not think it is the author of the bill's idea to get into sort of the broader conversation about legalization at the State level and what we should do at the Federal level in this bill. However, that is a part of it.

In March of 2019, the National Sheriffs' Association voiced concern with this bill, saying that it could easily be exploited. They echoed my concerns that ``allowing banking access for a Schedule 1 drug gives money laundering access to international drug cartels, which are already using the cover of legalization.''

Mr. Speaker, I include that letter in the Record.

National Sheriffs' Association,

March 19, 2019.

Hon. Maxine Waters,

Chairwoman, House of Representatives, Committee on Financial

Services, Washington, DC.

Hon. Patrick McHenry,

Ranking Member, House of Representatives, Committee on

Financial Services, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member McHenry: On

behalf of the National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) and more

than 3,080 sheriffs nationwide, I write to express our deep

concern and opposition to H.R. 1595, The SAFE Banking Act.

This bill creates protections for depository institutions

that provide financial services to cannabis-related

businesses and service providers for such businesses.

H.R. 1595 will increase the legalization of marijuana

across the Nation, which we understand is an intended

consequence of this bill. Furthermore, allowing banking

access for a Schedule 1 drug gives money laundering access to

international drug cartels, which are already using the cover

of legalization. This will inevitably open the door to other

criminal activity!

NSA is concerned with the welfare and safety of citizens

and works to preserve their rights to live and work in

communities where drug abuse is not accepted and they are not

subjected to the adverse effects of drug abuse. The dangers

of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the threat to

public safety caused by their use in terms of highway safety,

criminal activity, and domestic violence are well-documented.

NSA believes that any legislation regarding national

legalization must engage the nation's law enforcement

agencies in order to have a comprehensive discussion

regarding the potential implications this bill could have on

our communities. We urge The House of Representatives to

defeat this dangerous bill.

Sincerely,

Jonathan F. Thompson,

Executive Director and CEO.

Furthermore, we see cannabis-legal States like California, Washington, and Colorado, as the subject of recent news reports that cartels have found that it is easier to grow and process marijuana in legal States like Colorado and ship it throughout the United States than it is to bring it from Mexico or Cuba. I include that article in the Record, Mr. Speaker.

[From Global Power, May 29, 2018]

Foreign Cartels Embrace Home-Grown Marijuana in Pot-Legal States

(By Dennis Romero, Gabe Gutierrez, Andrew Blankstein and Robert Powell)

Los Angeles.--General Jeff Sessions called it ``one of the

largest residential forfeiture actions in American history.''

In early April, local and federal authorities descended

upon 74 marijuana grow houses in the Sacramento area they say

were underwritten by Chinese organized crime. They filed

court paperwork to seize the properties, worth millions of

dollars.

Federal officials allege that legal recreational marijuana

states like California, Colorado and Washington, where

enforcement of growing regulations is hit-or-miss, have been

providing cover for transnational criminal organizations

willing to invest big money to buy or rent property to

achieve even bigger returns.

Chinese, Cuban and Mexican drug rings have purchased or

rented hundreds of homes and use human trafficking to bring

inexperienced growers to the United States to tend them,

federal and local officials say.

The suspects are targeting states that have already

legalized marijuana ``in an attempt to shroud their

operations in our legal environment here and then take the

marijuana outside of the state,'' said Mike Hartman,

executive director of the Colorado Department of Revenue,

which regulates and licenses the cannabis industry.

Authorities say they've seen an increase in these ``home

grows'' since the launch of recreational pot sales in

Colorado.

While California and Washington have mainly seen organized

criminals from China buying homes and converting them into

grow houses, Colorado has largely been grappling with Cuban

and Mexican-led cartels, said Sheriff Bill Elder of the El

Paso County Sheriffs Office in Colorado.

``They have found that it's easier to grow and process

marijuana in Colorado, ship it throughout the United States,

than it is to bring it from Mexico or Cuba,'' Elder said.

Furthermore, because of this patchwork at the State level, I think you are seeing additional concerns at the southern border right now, and I will include for the Record a letter that the former Border Patrol chief submitted that in February alone there was nearly $14 million a day of marijuana caught at the southern border.

Despite these many issues I still have with the SAFE Banking Act, I do appreciate the work that my colleagues

have put into this legislative effort, but considering that the larger issue of cannabis legalization has not yet been debated here on the House floor, I think it is premature for the Financial Services Committee to do the full work of this Congress on the question of cannabis legalization at the Federal level. I think that would be better left to the Judiciary Committee, with a wider debate here on the House floor, and I would encourage that wider debate.

Notwithstanding that, I would like to thank my colleagues for the hard work that they have put into this legislation. Even if I have concerns, I know that there is more than sufficient support to pass this under the suspension calendar, and that would not happen were it not for the good legislative work of my colleague and friend from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

I do believe that my colleague was quite intentional about the date that he wanted to actually have the vote here on the House floor. With that, for those of you who don't know, tomorrow is 4/20/21, 4/20 being the operative date.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers), the subcommittee chair on Housing, Community Development, and Insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that if we are going to have legalization of cannabis, let's have legalization of cannabis and do it in regular order in the House of Representatives, not have it come through the Financial Services Committee. I wanted to be clear, and I wanted to make sure my colleague heard that.

But I do commend my colleague, Mr. Perlmutter, for taking every bit of the jurisdiction that we currently have and using it smartly for the best outcome possible.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce), my colleague and good friend.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to repeat this from my earlier remarks. This bill represents one of the biggest changes to U.S. drug policy. If we want banks to provide services risk-free, then we should do it thoughtfully and address the legality of cannabis instead of this workaround. This bill represents a yeoman's task of a legal framework so that funds from cannabis in those legalized States can be legally banked.

But that is not a holistic approach to this issue, nor should it be the Financial Services Committee leading the debate, which we have had one hearing on in the last 3 years in this committee--actually, you could say probably one hearing in the last decade on the Financial Services Committee. Yet, we have this bill, which, frankly, on its face is a very well-balanced bill to fix a glaring problem that is happening across the country.

This bill will legalize the banking of a federally illegal product. I am sure the irony of this is not at all lost on the American public.

The drug cartels, frankly, are keen to this, and other bad actors are keen to this. They will attempt to take advantage of this if it is not well-implemented, if it is not thoughtfully implemented, especially if those things are not the case.

No matter how we spin what is happening right now, we currently have a crisis at the southern border, and human trafficking is certainly a part of that; a desire to come to the United States is certainly a part of that; and the movement of illegal drugs into the United States is certainly a part of that. This doesn't help with that crisis at the southern border.

Again, we are the House Financial Services Committee. We are not the Homeland Security Committee, and we are not the Appropriations Committee, so we can't fix all things within our jurisdiction.

Let me close with this. I do not support this bill because it represents a workaround to a much bigger debate that we need to have in the United States, and that is whether or not cannabis should remain a schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. This fact is the bigger issue that I think this Congress should wrestle with, and I would welcome it. In fact, I think we can have a much more nuanced debate here.

But I do want to close by thanking my colleagues for creating a very thoughtful product. This legislative text is much improved upon from where it was originally. I thank my colleague, Mr. Perlmutter, for leading that conversation and leading that set of negotiations.

It has taken years to produce this product. It is strong legislative text. It is a strong legal framework. Even though I have pointed out a number of its deficiencies and challenges, I do see on its face how this would resolve a huge problem in a large number of States.

I understand that, and I am inviting the larger discussion about cannabis, as well. I think we need to have that conversation.

But I do thank my colleague, Mr. Perlmutter, for his leadership there, and I thank my colleagues, Mr. Stivers, Mr. Davidson, and Mr. Joyce, on our side of the aisle for engaging in that, as well as Mr. Luetkemeyer and Mr. Barr who dealt with particular issues in their States and their jurisdictions, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' but I understand if they do vote ``yes.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1996) to create protections for financial institutions that provide financial services to cannabis-related legitimate businesses and service providers for such businesses, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1996.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud we are here today to pass this bill about public safety, accountability, and respecting States' rights. Forty- seven States, four U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia have spoken and legalized some form of recreational or medical cannabis, including CBD products. 318 million people live in those 47 States. That is 97.7 percent of the population of America.

However, because cannabis remains illegal under Federal law, the Controlled Substance Act, businesses in these States are forced to deal in cash; and the businesses, their employees, and ancillary businesses can't access the banking system.

The fact is that the people in States and localities across the country are voting to approve some level of cannabis use, and we need these cannabis businesses and employees to have access to checking accounts, payroll accounts, lines of credit, credit cards, and more. This will improve transparency and accountability and help law enforcement root out illegal transactions to prevent tax evasion, money laundering, and other white-collar crime.

Most importantly, this will reduce the risk of violent crime in our communities. These businesses and their employees become targets for crime, robbery, assault, and more by dealing in all cash, and this puts the employees and the store owners at risk.

Over the last year in Oregon alone, a string of more than 100 robberies and burglaries at cannabis businesses culminated in a murder when Michael Arthur, a dispensary employee, was shot to death during a robbery.

Just last week in Colorado, an innocent bystander was shot during an attempted break-in at a medical cannabis business. And in Colorado, we are always reminded of Travis Mason, the young father and Marine Corps vet, who was murdered while working as a security guard for a cannabis business.

We must do better for these employees, their families, and all our communities.

The SAFE Banking Act will create a safe harbor for financial institutions and their employees who choose to do business with a cannabis company. Section 3 of the bill is particularly important to not only cannabis businesses, but everyone who might do business with a cannabis-related company. This section would protect ancillary businesses, like real estate owners, accountants, electricians, and vendors, by clarifying the proceeds from legitimate cannabis businesses are not unlawful under Federal laws. This proceeds section is the key provision allowing all cannabis-related businesses and their service providers and landlords to access the banking system without fear of reprisal.

This bill now has 177 bipartisan cosponsors, and one-third of the Senate is cosponsoring the companion bill from Senators Merkley and Daines.

Last Congress, the SAFE Banking Act passed the House 321-103, with the support of 91 Republicans. The broad base of support for this legislation generated a diverse group of cosponsors and endorsing organizations from banking, credit union, and insurance trade associations to labor unions, cannabis businesses and advocates, and State government leaders.

There are, obviously, many more marijuana issues we need to address working together, including additional research, tax issues, and criminal justice reforms. Passing this bill will show that Congress can work together in a bipartisan way to address outdated marijuana laws. I hope this bill is an icebreaker for the House to take up other reforms and finally remove the conflict between State and Federal laws.

In summary, even if you are opposed to the legalization of cannabis, you should support this bill. American voters have spoken and continue to speak, and the fact is that you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Prohibition is over. The SAFE Banking Act is focused solely on taking cash off the streets and making our communities safer, and only Congress can take these steps to provide this certainty for businesses, employees, and financial institutions across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representatives Velazquez, Stivers, Davidson, Joyce, Correa, and Blumenauer for their partnership on this bill and their commitment to making our communities safer. I also thank Representatives Luetkemeyer, Barr, and Porter for their contributions to the text of this bill and their support. Finally, I thank Chairwoman Maxine Waters for her support over the years and for continuing to make this a priority.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the SAFE Banking Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his many compliments. I would just remind him, we are the Financial Services Committee. We have a certain amount of jurisdiction that deals with financial institutions and financial services, and that is what this bill is focused on, dealing with so much cash generated by this industry, whether we do anything or not, and to try to advance public safety in the process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the chair of the Small Business Committee, who had a lot to do with writing the Small Business piece of this.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank Mr. Stivers for working with me so much over the last few years on this. I am going to miss him as he chooses to take another path in the near future. I just want to say on the floor, that he is a real credit to this institution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his work on this bill and his input on the card processing piece of the legislation.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). He has put the effort together across a whole range of cannabis issues. I thank him for his steadfast work on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record these endorsements for the SAFE Banking Act, including from the American Bankers Association, the American Council of Independent Laboratories, the American Council of Life Insurers, the American Financial Services Association, the American Land Title Association, the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp, the Arizona Dispensaries Association, the California Cannabis Industry Association, and the National Armored Car Association. It goes on forever. I am not going to list all of these. There are about 50 different endorsements.

H.R. 1996, the SAFE Banking Act of 2021--Endorsements

American Bankers Association; American Council of

Independent Laboratories; American Council of Life Insurers;

American Financial Services Association; American Land Title

Association; American Property Casualty Insurance

Association; American Trade Association for Cannabis and

Hemp; Arizona Dispensaries Association; California Cannabis

Industry Association; California and Nevada Credit Union

Leagues; Cannabis Business Association of Illinois; Colorado

Bankers Association; Colorado Municipal League; Credit Union

National Association; Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers;

Electronic Transactions Association; Independent Community

Bankers of America; Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of

America; Law Enforcement Action Partnership; Mountain West

Credit Union Association; National Armored Car Association;

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies; National

Association of Professional Insurance Agents; National

Association of Realtors.

National Cannabis Roundtable; National Cannabis Industry

Association; National Medicinal Cannabis Coalition; National

Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws; Minority

Cannabis Business Association; Policy Center for Public

Health & Safety; Reinsurance Association of America; Rural

County Representatives of California; The Real Estate

Roundtable; United Food and Commercial Workers; U.S. Cannabis

Council; U.S. Hemp Roundtable; Wholesale & Specialty

Insurance Association; TerrAscend USA; NUG, Inc.; Cresco

Labs; 4Front Ventures; Terrapin Care Station; Full Spectrum

Omega, Inc.; National Association of State Treasurers; Four

Attorneys General from Colorado, the District of Columbia,

North Dakota, and Ohio; 21 Governors from California,

Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine,

Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Nevada, New Jersey, New

Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, U.S. Virgin Islands,

Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin; 51

state and territory banking associations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. To his point that there is a broader discussion that has to take place, the purpose of this bill is a public safety purpose. Its purpose is to keep people from being killed, from being robbed, and from being assaulted. That is within the Financial Services Committee arena because, at this point, the cannabis industry and the people who serve it in one way or another have to deal in cash, which really creates the

potential for the robberies, for the murders, and for the assaults.

We have been able to gather a lot of support for this. I mentioned the bankers, the credit unions, the insurance industry, the cannabis industry, obviously, the real estate industry, the armored cars, and the minority cannabis industry. Law enforcement is supportive of this. We have the National Treasurers Association, 21 Governors, and attorneys general because they know this is a public safety matter and that we really need to address it.

We have been working on it for some time, as the gentleman from North Carolina mentioned, but we need to get this to the Senate. They need to take whatever action they want to take, but we have to make our communities and these businesses safer.

The SAFE Banking Act is about public safety. Our bill is narrowly tailored to get cash off the streets and improve public safety.

I thank my lead cosponsors on this bill, Representatives Velazquez, Stivers, and Davidson, and all of my colleagues who have listened to me talk about the need to address this problem for the last 8 years.

I also thank the staff of the Committee on Financial Services, the staff from my lead cosponsors, and my own staff, who put so much time into this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the SAFE Banking Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 667, I call up the bill (H.R. 4350) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2022 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4350.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Madam Speaker, we have before us the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, and I highly recommend it to the Members of the House and urge everybody to support this incredibly important and very well put together piece of legislation.

The first thing I will say is thank you to all of the staff, certainly on the Armed Services Committee, but the Rules Committee as well, and the leadership staff. This has been a truly bipartisan legislative process.

We had our markup in committee which lasted, I will do a little quick math in my head, something like 16 hours. We considered over 800 amendments, with a variety of different variations, and we got that number up closer to 1100. And then before the Rules Committee there were, again, over 800 amendments submitted, and we have worked with Members of this body, Democrats and Republicans, members on the committee and off, to craft what I think is a very good piece of legislation.

I think it is incredibly important, first of all, that we pass this bill so that Congress continues to exercise its authority to exercise oversight over the Department of Defense.

I know Members on both sides of this aisle have lamented throughout the years the degree to which the executive branch has exerted more power over the years, where the legislative branch has exhibited less. Now, granted, you find that issue more troubling when the opposite party is in charge of the White House, but we are all troubled by that phenomena.

We need to exercise our authority; this bill does that. To my mind, Congress does not pass enough authorizing bills, but we do do so in the Department of Defense, and have done so for over 60 straight years, and should do so again.

This bill, I think, is particularly important because we are at an important moment in defense of this country and in dealing with our role in the world. We have never faced a more complex threat environment. We have threats from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and transnational terrorist groups.

In addition, we are now coming out of 20 years of war fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, both countries of which our military now is out and not fighting those wars, and we have a whole bunch of change to deal with.

At the same time, innovation has never been more important in properly defending this country. We need to update and modernize our armed forces, everything from our information systems, to our command and control, to our platforms, to the support we give to our servicemembers. I am very proud that this bill reflects those priorities.

And the work has been done between Mr. Rogers and myself and members of the committee to produce that product. And I want to take a moment here to thank Mr. Rogers, the ranking member, he has been a terrific partner in this process, as has his staff and as has his members.

I think this bill reflects those priorities. It figures out how to improve our ability to update the military more quickly, to better buy software, to better innovate, to better embrace the innovative technologies that we need.

Madam Speaker, I want to particularly thank Mr. Langevin, as the subcommittee chair, who has taken the lead on the AI task force that looks at this question in great specificity. This bill really puts us in a position to modernize the force as we need to.

One other crucial issue that we do in this is we address the issue of sexual assault in the military that continues to be a scourge upon service in the military. We have worked for years to try to address this issue, we have not been successful.

This year, thanks in large part to the leadership of Congresswoman Speier, we have updated the UCMJ to create a special victims' prosecutor to give sexual assault and sex crimes the attention they deserve to make sure that we are protecting the men and women who serve in the military. It is a crucial aspect of this bill, and I strongly urge Members to support it.

Lastly, let me just say that as you pore over this bill, everybody here will find something that they do not like. Everybody here will also find something that they wish was in there that is not. There is no doubt about that, because it is a very large bill, and it was a collaborative process.

But it is the nature of the legislative process that you don't get absolutely everything that you want. I hope Members will keep that in mind. But it is also the nature of the legislative process, in this case, that we have produced a product that everybody in this House can be proud of.

And, again, I want to thank my Republican counterpart. We have worked together to produce this. I urge support from all Members. This is a bill every Member, Democrat and Republican, can enthusiastically support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on House Administration,

Washington, DC, September 8, 2021.

Hon. Adam Smith,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Smith: I am writing to you concerning H.R.

4350, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2022. There are certain provisions in the legislation that

fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on House

Administration.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed

expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill,

I am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential

referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving

consideration of the bill, the Committee on House

Administration does not waive any future jurisdictional claim

over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall

within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the

Speaker to name members of this committee to any conference

committee which is named to consider such provisions.

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R.

4350 and into the Congressional Record during consideration

of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the

cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this

matter and others between our respective committees.

Sincerely,

Zoe Lofgren,

Chairperson.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Rhode Island an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Golden), who is a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), who is the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the chair of the Intelligence and Special Operations Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I just want to agree with Mr. Rogers. This bill, as you can hear from the Members speaking in favor of it on both sides of the aisle, encompasses a lot of different provisions, all designed to make sure we can adequately defend the country; and, most importantly, designed to make sure that we protect the men and women who are serving us to protect that country.

There are a lot of provisions in this bill focused on improving the quality of life, including a 2.7 percent pay increase and significant increases to improve things like childcare centers and barracks across the country.

I think this bill does an excellent job of identifying the threats that we face and putting ourselves in the best possible position to meet those threats going forward.

Again, no bill is perfect. We disagree on things. Everyone will have something in here that they wish were slightly different, but overall, I think we can support this bill.

I do want to close by once again emphasizing, I know there is a lot of angst about the amendments that have been ruled in order; but, again, that is not unusual that we would deal with issues that are not necessarily directly within our jurisdiction. We work with the committees of jurisdiction in order to carry those bills. We will continue to work on that.

I can say with confidence that there is no amendment that has been ruled in order that we are going to debate on that should impact any Members voting for this bill. This is a very strong bill. Do not forget the underlying provisions in this bill that are so important to the men and women who are serving this country, to the protections they need, the protections they deserve, and the protections that it is our obligation to provide for them and which I feel very, very strongly that this bill does.

This bill deserves support from this committee. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Speaker, I offer this amendment, which is identical to the SAFE Banking Act the House passed by a vote of 321-101 in April. 180 bipartisan Members of Congress and 39 bipartisan Senators are cosponsors of this important legislation to allow State-regulated cannabis businesses to access the financial system and improve safety in our communities by getting cash off the streets.

By bringing cash into the financial system, banks and credit unions will

subject the funds and the account holders to rigorous anti-money laundering and ``know your customer'' requirements. Under FinCEN's 2014 guidance, financial institutions must comply with a heightened anti- money laundering reporting regime when providing services to cannabis businesses. This will strengthen the security of our financial system and our country by keeping bad actors like foreign cartels out of the cannabis industry.

But most importantly, this amendment will reduce the risk of violent crime in our communities. By dealing in all cash, these businesses and their employees become targets for robbery, assaults, burglaries, and more. In Colorado, Travis Mason, a young father and Marine Corps veteran, was murdered while working as a security guard for a cannabis business. We cannot wait any longer to address this public safety threat.

I want to thank my cosponsors on this amendment, Representatives Velazquez, Davidson, Correa, Blumenauer, Joyce, and Barbara Lee, as well as former Representatives Heck and Stivers.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just would remind the gentleman from Alabama the matter was deemed germane by the Parliamentarian.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Governors from 21 States and Territories endorsing the SAFE Banking Act, along with a list of 41 other diverse organizations who support the legislation.

Hon. Charles E. Schumer,

Majority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Sherrod Brown,

Chair, Senate Committee on Banking,

Housing and Urban Affairs, Washington, DC.

Hon. Maxine Waters,

Chair,

House Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

Minority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Pat Toomey,

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and

Urban Affairs, Washington, DC.

Hon. Patrick McHenry,

Ranking Member, House Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC.

April 19, 2021.

Dear Congressional Leaders: As our States' chief

executives, we urge Congress to pass legislation allowing

states with legalized medical or adult-use cannabis to

operate safely under the national banking system. We strongly

support the passage of the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE)

Banking Act of 2021 (H.R. 1996/S. 910) or similar legislation

that would remove the legal uncertainty and allow banks and

credit unions to provide services to state-licensed cannabis-

related businesses.

We were pleased that the House passed similar legislation

in the 116th Congress (H.R. 1595). The SAFE Banking Act of

2021 already has more than 165 bipartisan House cosponsors

and more than 30 bipartisan Senate cosponsors. The

legislation has also received support from more than 30

associations.

Currently, 36 U.S. states, four U.S. territories, and the

District of Columbia have legalized the medical use of

cannabis. Additionally, 18 states, two territories, and the

District of Columbia have legalized recreational use by

adults over 21 years of age. Despite legalization of cannabis

at the state-level, our financial institutions face enormous

legal risks and criminal and civil liability under the

Controlled Substances Act. These barriers disincentive

financial institutions from providing banking services to

state-licensed and regulated cannabis businesses.

Because few banks and credit unions provide these services,

state-licensed cannabis businesses predominantly operate on a

cash basis. Without banking services, state-licensed cannabis

businesses are unable to write checks, make and receive

electronic payments, utilize a payroll provider, or accept

credit and debit cards. Cash only businesses pose a

significant public safety risk to customers and employees.

The cash-only environment also burdens state and local

government agencies that must collect tax and fee payments in

person and in cash, which creates additional public expenses

and employee safety risks.

State and federal governments have a shared interest in

upholding the rule of law, protecting public safety, and

transitioning markets out of the shadows and into our

transparent and regulated banking system. Many of our states

have implemented laws and regulations to reduce these risks

while ensuring financial accountability of the cannabis

industry. These public safety risks can be further mitigated

on the federal level by passing the SAFE Banking Act to

provide state-licensed cannabis businesses with access to

banking service providers.

We urge you to pass the SAFE Banking Act of 2021 or similar

legislation that would provide a safe harbor for depository

institutions that provide a financial product or service to a

state-licensed cannabis business in states that have

legalized cannabis. We look forward to working with you as

legislation progresses to address this urgent public policy

and safety concern.

Sincerely,

Governor Jared Polis, State of Colorado; Governor Ned

Lamont, State of Connecticut; Governor John Bel

Edwards, State of Louisiana; Governor Charlie Baker,

State of Massachusetts; Governor Steve Sisolak, State

of Nevada; Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, State of

New Mexico; Governor Doug Burgum, State of North

Dakota; Governor Gavin Newsom, State of California;

Governor JB Pritzker, State of Illinois; Governor Janet

Mills, State of Maine; Governor Gretchen Whitmer, State

of Michigan; Governor Phil Murphy, State of New Jersey;

Governor Andrew Cuomo, State of New York; Governor Kate

Brown, State of Oregon; Governor Tom Wolf, State of

Pennsylvania; Governor Albert Bryan, Territory of U.S.

Virgin Islands; Governor Jay Inslee, State of

Washington; Governor Tony Evers, State of Wisconsin;

Governor Spencer Cox, State of Utah; Governor Ralph

Northam, State of Virginia; Governor Jim Justice, State

of West Virginia.

The SAFE Banking Act is supported by Governors from 21 states and

territories as well as these 41 organizations

1. American Bankers Association (ABA).

2. American Council of Independent Laboratories (ACIL).

3. American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI).

4. American Financial Services Association (AFSA).

5. American Land Title Association (ALTA).

6. American Property Casualty Insurance Association

(APCIA).

7. American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp

(ATACH).

8. Arizona Dispensaries Association (ADA).

9. Association of Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers (ABIR).

10. California and Nevada Credit Union Leagues (CCUL).

11. California Insurance Commissioner and California

Department of Insurance.

12. Cannabis Business Association of Illinois.

13. Colorado Bankers Association.

14. Colorado Municipal League.

15. Credit Union National Association (CUNA).

16. Council of lnsurance Agents & Brokers (CIAB).

17. Electronic Transactions Association (ETA).

18. Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA).

19. Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America

(IIABA).

20. Insured Retirement Institute (IRI).

21. Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP).

22. Mountain West Credit Union Association (MWCUA).

23. National Armored Car Association.

24. National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions

(NAFCU).

25. National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies

(NAMIC).

26. National Association of Professional Insurance Agents

(PIA).

27. National Association of Realtors.

28. National Association of State Treasurers (NAST).

29. National Cannabis Roundtable (NCR).

30. National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA).

31. National Medicinal Cannabis Coalition (NMCC).

32. National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws

(NORML).

33. Minority Cannabis Business Association (MCBA).

34. Policy Center for Public Health & Safety.

35. Reinsurance Association of America (RAA).

36. Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)

37. The Real Estate Roundtable.

38. United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW).

39. U.S. Cannabis Council (USCC).

40. U.S. Hemp Roundtable.

41. Wholesale & Specialty Insurance Association (WSIA).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

This is a public safety and a national security matter, very germane to the issues at hand, dealing with foreign cartels and particularly the cash that is developed by this business that leads to crime. We have seen murders, robberies, assaults, and then the potential for foreign malignant forces to get into the cannabis industry here in the United States.

I urge the passage of amendment No. 1 and yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4350. We have maintained the bipartisan tradition of the Armed Services Committee.

Now, while this administration promotes weakness abroad and tyranny at home, robust support for defense in this bill ensures that our adversaries understand that our military has the resources required to stymy their aggressive ambitions which will guarantee that our military will succeed if called upon.

This legislation will enhance readiness by funding the unfunded requests of the services and the co-coms. It will maintain our commitment to the nuclear triad and modernization and aggressively enhance our space capabilities. It protects our troops against punishment for personal politics, prohibits dishonorable discharge for COVID vaccination refusal, and requires a plan for exemptions. And it begins to hold the Biden administration accountable for Afghanistan.

Now, while this bill fosters U.S.-Israeli cooperation, including $300 million for multiple collaborative programs, anti-Israel Democrats have stripped the continuing resolution of $1 billion for the Iron Dome missile defense system.

What does it say about the Progressive Caucus that they object to Israeli citizens defending themselves from missile attacks?

It is reprehensible and anti-Semitic.

Nevertheless, this bill as it currently stands is a bipartisan bill.

I thank the chairman and ranking member for maintaining the collaborative nature of our committee. I want to thank especially the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, John Garamendi, for his leadership and commitment to bipartisanship. I thank my readiness team, Ian, Dave, and Whitney, for their invaluable hard work during this process.

Madam Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in opposition to this amendment to add a package of unrelated lands bills to the National Defense Authorization Act. Collectively, this pair of bills, this one and the next one, amendments, would impose unnecessary and harmful restrictions on more than 2\1/2\ million acres of lands in Colorado, California, and Washington, including nearly 1\1/ 2\ million of acres of new wilderness designating many miles of wild and scenic rivers and creating 100,000 acres of national monument expansion.

These restrictions will have the effect of greatly reducing opportunities for multiple uses of these lands and will restrict forest management practices that will render these lands more prone to catastrophic wildfires.

In Colorado alone, this amendment would designate approximately 570,000 acres of new wilderness areas, 23,000 acres of expanded wilderness, and 14,000 acres of potential wilderness.

Now, we already have 3.5 million acres of public lands in Colorado that are designated as wilderness, so that protection is already there.

Now, I do commend my colleague for her efforts to work with local stakeholders to address some of their concerns over the years that she has been working on this issue. But this package, unfortunately, does not come close to the kind of balance and consensus that should be required for a package of this magnitude. Many of the local communities impacted by this amendment and that I have heard from have raised significant concerns, including the loss of motorized access and recreation, which would threaten their local economy.

A wilderness designation also makes it much more difficult or even impossible to remove excess fire hazards or invasive species. There is no real management of the land. Future generations lose access to the land, at least for average, everyday people. In a true wilderness area, you can't even ride a bicycle.

This bill is inconsistent with previous designations and existing land uses by arbitrarily adding wilderness areas and wild and scenic river designations where those designations are not really appropriate. Supporting the declaration of areas that do not actually possess these characteristics undermines the integrity of the Wilderness Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for what was originally intended.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert), who has a district where, actually, this designation would take place.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

I rise in opposition to this amendment because it restricts approximately 400,000 acres of land in Colorado, and although the stated goal of the language is to protect and enhance outdoor recreation--and I agree with that goal as stated--the practical effect of this amendment would not be that at all.

For one thing, the active management of land that is under wilderness designation to prevent wildfires is much restricted, if not made impossible. In a State with a lot of wildfire risk, that is simply not acceptable.

Rural county commissioners have talked to me and other opponents of this bill and have raised concerns about negative economic impact of the withdrawal of 200,000 acres of oil and gas land and what effect that would have on their communities.

This amendment would also lock away approximately 1 million acres of public lands in Arizona and permanently ban mining and other multiple- use activities in that State. This misguided and mistitled land grab has nothing to do with protecting the

Grand Canyon. Instead, it seeks to ban development of one of the largest tracts of uranium deposits in the country.

The result of this is to make us more reliant on adversaries such as Russia. We already import 97 percent of our uranium from foreign sources, and that would only become more precarious if this took effect. Since 2018, the majority of uranium imports have come from adversarial nations such as Russia.

What this amendment is doing in the National Defense Act makes no sense at all.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, let's actually hear from Representatives who live in these areas.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert). The gentlewoman is from the western part of the State where this would actually take place, and I believe she is in touch with the people in her district.

Madam Speaker, just like the previous amendment, this amendment was successfully added to last year's NDAA, but the conferees properly dropped it from the final conference report, so it ultimately failed. It is simply unacceptable that we would add an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that not only has nothing to do with national defense, but this actually hurts our national defense by empowering adversaries like Russia with their uranium production while limiting our own domestic national production of uranium.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.