Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause (2)(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the form of the resolution appear in the Record at this point.

I do, Mr. Speaker.

I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, under clause 1 of rule IX, questions of the privilege of the House are ``those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings.''

I believe the dignity and the integrity of the House are put at risk when this body refuses to exercise its statutory authority and constitutional obligation to operate as a check on the executive branch.

Under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, three congressional committees have jurisdiction to request tax returns: House Ways and Means, Senate Finance, and the Joint Committee on Taxation.

This authority was placed in the Tax Code by Congress in 1924 to allow for full investigations of several scandals in the Harding administration, including the Teapot Dome bribery scandal. Section 6103 was the subject of considerable debate in this Chamber, but, ultimately, Congress passed it in order to provide an important investigatory check on the executive branch.

In 1974, section 6103 authority was used by the members of the Joint Committee on Taxation to publish a staff report on President Nixon's tax returns revealing that he owed nearly a half a million dollars in back taxes. Today, I worry that we are rapidly approaching a scandal of a similar magnitude to these previous events.

Since we voted on a similar resolution last week, the Attorney General and other senior administration officials have admitted that they met with Russian officials during the campaign and the transition period. This comes after the campaign and unequivocally last year saying that there was ``no communications between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign.''

Mr. Speaker, I understand, and I am working to establish that case.

Further reports about the President's potential conflicts of interest suggest that the House should exercise its oversight authority immediately, including massive foreign payments to the President's hotels and prior business deals with foreign oligarchs around the world. The only way to determine whether these dealings represent----

Mr. Speaker, I am attempting to set forward the question of the privileges of the House on a privileged resolution, and this is a part of it.

I believe the only way to determine whether these dealings represent violations of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution is by fully examining the President's tax records.

Contrary to the Chair's ruling last Monday, there is no direct precedent in section 706 of the House Practice manual for the situation because the current situation is unprecedented. The President's business empire makes him more susceptible to conflicts of interest than any President in our history.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my friend, classmate, and wonderful colleague, for yielding time to me.

I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bills. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that this bipartisan bill that I have written, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act, can be made in order for immediate floor debate and a vote.

The Presidential Tax Transparency Act would require the President and all future Presidents and Presidential nominees of the major parties, Democrats and Republicans, to publicly disclose their tax returns. It came as a surprise to many Americans, during the 2016 campaign, that this disclosure was not required by law. Instead, we have had a tradition of voluntary disclosure among every President of both parties since the post-Watergate era. Until now, our Presidents have recognized that those who seek or hold the most powerful office in the world should be held to the highest standard of transparency.

Donald Trump is the first President to refuse to release his tax returns since Gerald Ford, a man of the House. I remember when his remains were brought to the Capitol where he rested in the rotunda but came by the doors of the House. He was a man of the House and a man of integrity.

He along with a host of others, Democrats and Republicans, voluntarily released their tax returns. But Mr. Trump's 2016 candidate filing with the Federal Election Commission shows that he has 564 financial positions in companies located both in the United States and around the world, including relationships with state-affiliated businesses in several countries.

Why is this important to note? The President had an opportunity to resolve these potential conflicts of interest by divesting and placing his business assets into a true blind trust, as other Presidents have done, Republicans and Democrats. Instead, he chose to turn over control of his business to his sons in an arrangement that the Director of the nonpartisan Office of Government Ethics called ``wholly inadequate'' and ``meaningless from a conflict of interest perspective.'' Since he is taken office, these ethics concerns have been borne out in the form of his and his campaign's connections to Russia, deeply, deeply troubling to all of us and to the American people, legitimately so; his family's potential new business dealings in the Dominican Republic and Uruguay; and the hiring of a ``director of diplomatic sales'' at his Washington, D.C., hotel to attract high-priced business among foreign diplomats. This is deeply unsettling, to say the least.

Simply put, the President's business empire makes him more susceptible to conflicts of interest than any other President in the history of our country. Three of the President's nominees have already withdrawn their names from consideration due to potential financial conflicts of interest. Only a full release of the President's tax returns will provide the public with clear information as to his potential conflicts of interest and his potential entanglements with foreign governments and foreign businesses.

Last night, here on the floor, the House voted along party lines, unfortunately, to block an effort to obtain the President's tax returns under the House's existing authority. Today, we have another chance to honor the will of the American people and write this important disclosure tradition into law--into law.

According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, 74 percent of Americans believe the President should release his tax returns--74 percent. The top petition on the White House website has over 1 million signatures to it, calling on the President to release his tax returns.

I think the voice of the people, the American people, is clear. As their representatives, they deserve to have us take action on this because we all want a conflict of interest-free President.

I urge my colleagues to reject the previous question so we can hold an immediate vote on the Presidential Tax Transparency Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 43 which is another baseless and dangerous attack on women's health care providers.

The title X Family Planning Rule, passed almost 50 years ago, already requires states to base title X funding on a provider's ability to provide title X services. This rule protects title X providers from facing unwarranted discrimination and allows them to continue doing the important work 4 million Americans rely on every year. Title X services include family planning services, cancer screenings, birth control, STI testing and basic care. To diminish these services will result in women, men and young people with the greatest need being denied the opportunity to have any health care.

Whether or not a provider provides safe and legal abortions with private funds is irrelevant to their ability and capacity to provide title X services. In fact, it is preventive services and family planning offered through title X programs that help to lower the number of unintended pregnancies. But attacks on these providers and the services they offer in their communities persist.

This resolution rolls back protections that should already be guaranteed, but repeated attacks on family planning providers have resulted in the need for rules like the one this resolution dismantles. That is why I strenuously oppose this resolution. It should be rejected as an unjustified and unnecessary attack on title X programs and the services they provide for millions of low income Americans.

Mr. Speaker, Raymond Lawrence Sullivan, Jr., was born in San Francisco

on October 4, 1942. He was the second of six children and grew up in San Francisco and Hillsborough. He has three living siblings, Phillip Sullivan, Mary Sullivan Ward and Mother Agnes of the Cross, CJM.

Larry was educated at St. Catherine's Grammar School in Burlingame, Bellarmine College Prep in San Jose, the University of San Francisco, and the UCSF Medical School. He did his residency in Anesthesiology at Stanford, and served our country in the U.S. Navy Medical Corps from 1968 to 1970.

Larry married Victoria Growney on August 13, 1966. Together they have raised three magnificent children: Larry Sullivan III; Kasey Sullivan Bradstreet, JD; Loretta Sullivan Chang, MD; Brian Sullivan; and Jason Lally, their foster child who is part of their extended family. Their four grandchildren, Liam, Andrew and Thomas Chang, and Oscar Bradstreet bring them untold joy.

Dr. Sullivan joined the medical staff of O'Connor Hospital as an anesthesiologist in 1975 and has served there until his retirement. From 1982 to 1988 he served as Clinical Assistant Professor of Anesthesia at Stanford University School of Medicine. At O'Connor Hospital he was Anesthesia Department Chair, a member of the Critical Care Committee, President of the Medical Staff, Member of the Hospital's Board of Directors, and Chair of the Medical Staff Advisory Committee. He was honored in 2011 with the Vincentian Spirit Award given by O'Connor Hospital.

Dr. Sullivan has given generously of his time and talents to his professional community as a member of the Santa Clara County Medical Association, the American Medical Association, The California Society of Anesthesiologists, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (CSA) and the California Medical Association. From 1997 to 2006 he served on a Specialty Delegation to the CMA House of Delegates and received the Distinguished Service Award from the CSA in 2009.

Larry served as a referee and coach of the American Youth Soccer Association in Palo Alto, and was Scoutmaster of Troop 57, Stanford Area Council, where he guided 35 Scouts to Eagle Scout rank.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring an extraordinary physician, a devoted son, husband, father, grandfather, vital member of our community, and a treasured personal friend. Larry Sullivan is a man of integrity and he lives a life instructed by his faith. I have never met a finer human being or a finer family. How proud I am to call them my friends and to have the privilege of representing them. I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me in wishing my dear friend Larry, a great and good man, and his devoted wife Vicky, every blessing that retirement has to offer.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon really with a very, very sad and heavy heart. I don't know anyone in our country who watched what took place across the country who wasn't dismayed, who wasn't heartbroken, who wasn't confused. And as my constituents said: What is happening in our country?

Now, there are some that say this must be done. This executive order must be done in the name of national security.

I am a veteran of the House Intelligence Committee, but it doesn't take a veteran of the House Intelligence Committee to understand that this harms our national security.

We need to have more voices in the House. We need Republicans and Democrats standing up together, because historians will replace your surname, and those that don't raise their voices will be called coward because this is ripping at the fabric and the soul of our Nation. It is appalling. It is unlawful. I believe it is unconstitutional.

If you stood up for history and what was done to others, it is taking place right now in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind the President's ban for the sake of our national security.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act.

This bill is an unprecedented attack on a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions and another attempt by Republicans to undermine the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

This legislation goes far beyond the long-standing Hyde Amendment which Congress passes every year during the Appropriations process preventing taxpayer dollars from being used for abortions. The Hyde Amendment is included in each Appropriations bill every year. This bill stretches increase taxes on millions of individuals and small businesses that purchase private healthcare plans that include abortion coverage. It takes away protections for rape survivors and pregnant women whose lives are in danger, and bans women in the military from abortion care in a military hospital overseas, even if they use their own money to pay for that care. This will deny millions of American women access to truly comprehensive health care.

A woman's right to choose whether to end a pregnancy is protected constitutionally. The decision is private. It is a matter of faith and it is a matter of conscience. I believe women already have the right to make decisions about reproductive health care, that it is protected constitutionally. This legislation should be rejected for its overly broad reach, its false advertising and its attack on the constitutionally protected right to privacy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 582, Kari's Law Act of 2017.

H.R. 582 addresses a very serious problem. The bill requires Multi- Line Telephone Systems to provide direct dialing to 9-1-1. The bill is named after Kari Hunt who was tragically murdered by her estranged husband in a hotel room while her daughter tried to dial 9-1-1 but could not get help because the Multi-Line Telephone System required a prefix to be dialed first.

When we dial 9-1-1 from a hotel or office--when seconds matter--we shouldn't have to dial ``9'' or some other prefix to get help. I strongly support the overall goals of this bill which is identical to legislation passed by the full House in the 114th Congress by voice vote.

I also think location accuracy for Multi-Line Telephone Systems is just as important. First

responders have to know exactly where an individual is calling from, especially if the caller is unable to communicate to the dispatcher, or the caller simply doesn't know where they are. If first responders have to spend time searching buildings or going door to door, the time it takes to do this can be the difference between life and death.

During the subcommittee and full committee markups of this legislation in the last Congress, I offered an amendment to require a location accuracy proceeding at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) within 180 days of enactment of the bill. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues did not agree to accept my amendment and instead proposed language requiring the FCC to conduct a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to solicit public comment on requiring location accuracy for Multi-Line Telephone Systems. I did not accept this proposal because I thought and still do, that an NOI does not move the ball forward. That view is shared by the FCC and the public safety community.

The FCC has studied location accuracy technology for Multi-Line Telephone Systems since 1994, and as recently as 2012, Congress directed the FCC to issue a Public Notice Seeking Comment on the feasibility of Multi-Line Telephone Systems to provide the precise location of a 9-1-1 caller. This was included in Section 6504(b) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 and was modeled on legislation I introduced with my colleague and fellow bipartisan Co- Chair of the NextGen 9-1-1 Caucus, Representative Shimkus, known as the Next Generation 911 Advancement Act of 2012.

Despite the extensive history surrounding location accuracy, the FCC has failed to take action to require this essential technology in Multi-Line Telephone Systems. Not doing so places lives at stake in my view.

Last Congress, I introduced H.R. 5236, the Requesting Emergency Services and Providing Origination Notification Systems Everywhere (RESPONSE) Act, which would require the Federal Communications Commission to complete a proceeding requiring all Multi-Line Telephone Systems to provide first responders with the precise location of a 9-1- 1 caller. I intend to reintroduce the RESPONSE Act in this new Congress and I'm hopeful my colleagues will work with me to pass this important bill and build on the work of H.R. 582.

Although H.R. 582 does not address the critical issue of location accuracy, it is nonetheless a step in the right direction that will save lives and make progress. For these reasons I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 582.

Madam Speaker, I thank our wonderful colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding to me.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that this bill that I have authored, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act, can be made in order for immediate floor debate and a vote.

Now, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act would require the President and future Presidential nominees of both parties to disclose their tax returns. Many Americans took for granted that this was covered by law, but what we have had is a decades-long tradition of voluntary disclosure by both Republican and Democratic nominees for the Presidency.

For the first time since the immediate post-Watergate era, candidate Trump and now President Trump has refused to release his tax returns to the public. Those who seek or hold the most powerful office in the world should be held to the highest standard of transparency to ensure the best interests of the American people are met.

Tax returns provide an important baseline disclosure because they contain highly instructive information, including whether the candidate paid any taxes, what they own, what they have borrowed and from whom, whether they have made charitable donations, and whether they have taken advantage of tax loopholes or offshore tax shelters.

The President and his spokesperson have both recently said that he will not release his tax returns because the American people ``don't care.'' I beg to differ. The top petition on the Web site of the White House calls for the release of the President's tax returns with over 300,000 signatures already on it. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released last week found that 74 percent of the American people, including 53 percent of whom are Republicans, believe the President should release his tax returns. We want a President free of conflicts of interest.

For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the previous question and to vote for the Presidential Tax Transparency Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss H.R. 290, the FCC Process Reform Act of 2017.

I'm particularly proud of a bipartisan provision I first authored in the 112th Congress that I'm pleased is included in this legislation today. This provision would modify current FCC rules to allow three or more Commissioners to hold non-public collaborative discussions, as long as no agency action is taken.

Today, under the FCC's ``Sunshine Rule,'' three Commissioners or more are prohibited from talking to each other outside of an official public meeting. The FCC oversees industries representing approximately one- sixth of the American economy. It must be able to collaborate freely and deliberate on our nation's most pressing communications issues, from enhancing universal service and public safety, to making more spectrum available for mobile broadband.

As Congress looks at ways to help modernize the FCC, this bipartisan, commonsense provision will help to promote greater discussion among the five FCC Commissioners and ensure they can benefit from each other's expertise and experience. Through greater collaboration, the FCC will be better positioned to respond to a fast-paced and rapidly growing telecommunications industry in the 21st century.

I thank Chairman Walden for including this provision in the bill the House has passed today.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my grave concerns with the Republican budget proposal for 2017. The budget before us today is a disaster for the American people. Not only does it add $9 trillion to the national debt and put our nation on the path to fiscal ruin, it begins the process of dismantling the Affordable Care

Act, taking health insurance away from 30 million Americans.

Our national budget is not just pages of numbers. It is a statement of our nation's values. By that measure, this budget is morally bankrupt.

The Affordable Care Act became law in March 2010, yet despite their condemnations of the law, Republicans have failed to present any comprehensive alternative in the nearly seven years since it was signed into law. Not one single proposal. The Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said it best at the Washington Post's Daily 202 interview on November 29th last year when he suggested our healthcare system should look more like the cable industry because of all the choices consumers have in that market. He said, ``I always use the analogy, would I want to pick a cable company to watch what I want to watch on TV? I love the options that I have, I love the ability to switch, I love the different packages that I can pick if I like a certain sports team, or I want to watch HBO or something else. Why can't we have health care in a manner that we can do something to that extent?''

If Republicans think the American people want the cable industry to serve as a model for the health insurance market, our Republican colleagues are even more out of touch than I ever imagined.

After spending years and 65 votes to repeal the ACA, and warning Americans about the dire threats of budget deficits and the national debt, Republicans have suddenly done an about face. They no longer care about the fiscal impact of this budget which adds $9 trillion to the national debt over 10 years. Nor do they care about the fiscal impact of repealing the Affordable Care Act which is estimated to cost $350 billion over 10 years according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The House majority has also set its sights on dismantling our nation's premier social insurance program by including in the House Rules package the unprecedented requirement that each standing committee identify programs that can be moved from mandatory to discretionary spending. This is a chilling and thinly veiled move to begin dismantling the guarantee of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and tie the future of these essential programs to the uncertainty of the annual appropriations process.

I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about the far-reaching consequences of this budget on the well-being of the American people and the fiscal health of our nation and vote `No' on final passage.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my grave concerns with the Republican budget proposal for 2017.

The budget before us today is a disaster for the American people. Not only does it add $9 trillion to the national debt and put our nation on the path to fiscal ruin, it begins the process of dismantling the Affordable Care Act, taking health insurance away from 30 million Americans.

Our national budget is not just pages of numbers. It is a statement of our nation's values. By that measure, this budget is morally bankrupt.

The Affordable Care Act became law in March 2010, yet despite their condemnations of the law, Republicans have failed to present any comprehensive alternative in the nearly seven years since it was signed into law. Not one single proposal. The Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said it best at the Washington Post's Daily 202 interview on November 29th last year when he suggested our healthcare system should look more like the cable industry because of all the choices consumers have in that market. He said:

``I always use the analogy, would I want to pick a cable company to watch what I want to watch on TV? I love the options that I have, I love the ability to switch, I love the different packages that I can pick if I like a certain sports team, or I want to watch HBO or something else. Why can't we have health care in a manner that we can do something to that extent?''

If Republicans think the American people want the cable industry to serve as a model for the health insurance market, our Republican colleagues are even more out of touch than I ever imagined.

After spending years and 65 votes to repeal the ACA, and warning Americans about the dire threats of budget deficits and the national debt, Republicans have suddenly done an about face. They no longer care about the fiscal impact of this budget which adds $9 trillion to the national debt over 10 years. Nor do they care about the fiscal impact of repealing the Affordable Care Act which is estimated to cost $350 billion over 10 years according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The House majority has also set its sights on dismantling our nation's premier social insurance program by including in the House Rules package the unprecedented requirement that each standing committee identify programs that can be moved from mandatory to discretionary spending. This is a chilling and thinly veiled move to begin dismantling the guarantee of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and tie the future of these essential programs to the uncertainty of the annual appropriations process.

I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about the far-reaching consequences of this budget on the well-being of the American people and the fiscal health of our nation and vote `No' on final passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 315, the bipartisan Improving Access to Maternity Care Act which I was pleased to introduce with Representative Burgess.

Today, millions of expectant mothers in rural and underserved areas in our country face lengthy wait times and have to travel long distances to receive maternity care. Without adequate care, they are at increased risk for complications and their newborns are at higher risk to endure health problems. Access to maternal health care professionals including OB-GYNs and midwives is a critical component of consistent, high-quality maternal health care from conception through birth.

In my home state of California there are only 4,856 OB-GYNs according to the Pew Charitable Trust, for almost 40 million residents, a shortage which can result in dangerous health risks and long-term consequences for new mothers and their babies.

I'm proud to support H.R. 315, which takes an important first step toward meeting the growing need for maternal health care professionals across our country. By directing the collection of data about current access to maternity care, this legislation will identify the geographic regions of our country that face shortages in maternal health care professionals and will eventually result in the distribution of maternal health care professionals, including doctors and midwives to areas of the country where the full scope of their medical practice can be utilized and where they are needed most. This bill makes important progress toward ensuring that all Americans, expectant and new mothers have access to the healthcare they need and deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Robert ``Bob'' Rosenbauer, a

geochemist who joined the USGS in Menlo Park, California, in 1974. He was part of what was then known as the Branch of Pacific and Arctic Marine Geology. He soon established the USGS rock/water/gas interaction laboratory and worked on theoretical and experimental studies of submarine hydrothermal, volcanic, and geothermal systems for more than 22 years.

In 1996, Bob Rosenbauer developed a laboratory to help understand natural and human-induced stresses on the environment. His diverse research interests include the use of signature lipid biomarkers and stable isotopes to study nearshore ecosystem processes, changes in microbial diversity in marine sediment linked to contaminants, and the paleo-occurrence of hypoxia in deltaic systems.

He led efforts to assess the risk of contaminated floodwater sediment to human and ecosystem health in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the potential environmental and human-health impacts of the mud volcano in East Java at Sidoarjo. He participated in studies on saline encroachment in the Los Angeles Basin and on hydrocarbon occurrence along the California coast and in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. He led the effort to chemically fingerprint and determine the persistence and degradation pathways of oil from recent spills in San Francisco Bay from the merchant vessel Cosco Busan and in the Gulf of Mexico from the Deepwater Horizon explosion.

Bob Rosenbauer led studies on the experimental investigation, theoretical modeling, and environmental impacts of CO2 sequestration in geologic formations with colleagues from the national and international scientific community. He is the author or co-author of more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific publications. On September 26, 2011, Bob Rosenbauer was named the new Director of the USGS Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center (PCMSC) in Santa Cruz, California.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Bob Rosenbauer who has devoted more than four decades of his life to science, improving our understanding of our environment and making our country stronger. After giving his entire career in service to science and our nation, Bob Rosenbauer retired from the United States Geological Survey on January 3, 2017. He will be honored, together with his wife Terri, on January 15, 2017. Let the entire House of Representatives wish him every blessing in his well deserved retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Albert J. Nader, who passed away on December 22, 2016, in Palm Springs, California, at the age of 84. He is survived by his wife Gemma Allen Nader, his children Page and Jason, his step-children Bridget and Sean, and six grandchildren.

Albert Nader was the son of the late Joshua Nader, an Assyrian immigrant from Iran, and Olga. He was exceedingly proud to be a native Chicagoan and of Assyrian heritage. He grew up near Wrigley Field and attended Blaine Elementary School and Lake View High School where he played baseball and basketball. He graduated from DePaul University and served as a First Lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps. After his service to our country, he went on to work for Sears, Montgomery Ward, and Rand McNally developing films, globes, maps, and textbooks for libraries and schools, and founded the highly successful ad agency, Nader-Lief.

In 1978, against the advice of his wife and other friends, Albert Nader took his innovative vision to help people collect videos and created Questar to produce, acquire and distribute video programs. Questar offered viewers videos covering a wide variety of topics, including nature, cooking, and history. Albert Nader found inspiration for programs to create or distribute everywhere he went, including church and family vacations. He guided his groundbreaking vision through changing technology and today his programs are streaming online.

Albert was a force of nature, always bursting with ideas, implementing them and advancing the causes he believed in. He was a faith-filled man, a long-time supporter of Moody Church, and proud of his Assyrian heritage. Most recently, he was raising funds for Assyrians caught in the wars in Iraq and Syria. He was a man who loved his family and was devoted to his church, his community and his country. Because of all he did in living a worthy life, our country has been bettered immeasurably. Mr. Speaker, I ask the entire House of Representatives to join me in expressing our collective sympathy to Albert Nader's wife and family on the loss of a great and good man, Albert J. Nader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to rise today in support of this legislation, the Energy Efficient Government Technology Act.

I want to thank my colleague and friend, Mr. Olson, for his wonderful description of the bill and his important support of it. I want to thank the new chairman of the full committee, Mr. Walden, and the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for their support, and my legislative partner, Adam Kinzinger, for his partnership on this bill.

I hope that this, the 115th Congress, is going to be the magic charm. I have introduced this bill now in three Congresses, and it passed in each Congress, but it didn't make it to the President's desk. I hope this time it will.

The bill is really a very simple one. It is about bringing the Federal Government's IT and data centers into the 21st century. The Federal Government is the Nation's largest energy user. I want to say that again. The Federal Government is our Nation's largest energy user, and we should lead by example in this area.

By requiring Federal agencies to utilize the best technologies and energy management strategies, this bill will reduce the government's energy use. Very importantly, it is going to save taxpayer dollars, and it is going to also set an example for the private sector.

Today, the world generates more data in 12 hours than was generated in all of human history prior to 2003.

I can tell by the look on your face, Mr. Speaker, that that takes your breath away.

This data must be stored and processed at data centers, which are the backbone of the 21st century economy, but can be highly energy inefficient. While we now routinely hear about data centers, this was not the case when I began examining this issue over a decade ago. In those days, I had to explain to my colleagues what a data center was.

In 2005, I offered language in the Energy Policy Act which mandated an EPA study on the energy use and energy costs of data centers. This report was then transmitted to Congress in 2007, and today most Americans understand that data centers are a critical part of our national infrastructure and are found in nearly every sector of our economy.

According to the GSA, the Federal Government, alone, has more than 2,000 data centers which store everything from Social Security and tax records to e-books at the Library of Congress.

Several Silicon Valley companies have taken the lead in developing efficient, sustainable data centers, but we can do much, much more across the private sector and the government.

The Department of Energy estimates that the 70 billion kilowatt hours of electricity that are used by U.S. data centers annually could be slashed in half simply through implementation of best practices and existing technologies.

This bill, H.R. 306, will drive energy efficiency improvements across the government's IT and data centers by requiring Federal agencies to, number one, utilize the best technologies and energy management strategies; two, formulate specific goals and periodically review their energy efficiency--it

is very important to track the efficiencies--and, three, make government center data energy usage statistics public in a way that empowers further innovation.

Importantly, the bill requires government agencies to formulate specific performance goals and a means to calculate overall cost savings from implementation.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I first introduced the legislation in 2013. It has passed the House by wide margins in each of the last two Congresses. It is noncontroversial. It is bipartisan. It makes sense. I want to urge all of my colleagues to support the bill.

I thank my colleagues on a bipartisan basis at the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney), my valued colleague on the committee.

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