Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 2) proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

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.J. Res. 2, currently under consideration.

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

March 2, 1995, was a pivotal day in the history of our country. On that day, the United States Senate failed by one vote to send a balanced budget constitutional amendment to the States for ratification. The amendment had passed the House by the required two- thirds majority, and the Senate vote was the last legislative hurdle before ratification by the States.

If Congress had listened to the American people and sent that amendment to the States for ratification, we would not be facing the fiscal crisis we are today. Rather, balancing the Federal budget would have been the norm, instead of the exception, over the past 20 years, and we would have nothing like the annual deficits and skyrocketing debt we currently face.

In 1995, when the balanced budget amendment came within one vote of passing, the gross Federal debt stood at $4.9 trillion. Today, it stands at over $20 trillion. The Federal debt held by the public is rising as well and is increasing rapidly as a percentage of the country's economic output. Unlike the past, when the debt spiked to pay for wars of finite duration and then was reduced gradually after hostilities ended, more recently, the debt has risen as a result of having to pay for entitlement programs that are of indefinite duration and difficult to reduce over time.

As John Cogan of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University wrote: ``All of the increase in Federal spending relative to GDP over the past seven decades is attributable to entitlement spending. Since the late 1940s, entitlement claims on the Nation's output of goods and services have risen from less than 4 percent to 14 percent. Surprising as it may seem, the share of GDP that is spent on national defense and nondefense discretionary programs combined is no higher today than it was seven decades ago.''

As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has observed, such high and rising debt will have serious negative consequences. Interest rates will increase considerably, productivity and wages will be lower, and high debt increases the risk of a financial crisis.

What is particularly troubling is that the debts we are incurring under entitlement programs will burden multiple future generations. Indeed, a few years ago, a cross-national study found that the United States ranked worst among 29 advanced countries in the degree to which it imposes unfair debt burdens on future generations.

University of Virginia philosophy professor Loren Lomasky has written that theorists have devoted considerable attention to injustices committed across lines of race and gender. Far less attended are concerns of intergenerational fairness. That omission is serious. Measures that have done very well by the baby boomers are much less generous to their children and worse still for their grandchildren. The single greatest unsolved problem of justice in the developed world today is transgenerational plunder.

It is time for Congress to stop saddling future generations with the burden of crushing debts to pay for current spending. We should not pass on to our children and grandchildren the bleak fiscal future that our unsustainable spending is creating.

The only way to ensure that Congress acts with fiscal restraint over the longterm is to pass a balanced budget amendment. Experience has proved time and again that Congress cannot for any significant length of time rein in excessive spending. Annual deficits and the resulting debt continue to grow due to political pressures that the Constitution's structure no longer serves to restrain.

In order for Congress to be able to consistently make the tough decisions necessary to sustain fiscal responsibility, Congress must have the external pressure of a balanced budget requirement to force it to do so. Constitutional principle will prevail where political promises have not.

The Framers of the Constitution were familiar with the need for constitutional restrictions on deficit spending. When the Constitution was ratified, it was the States that had exhibited out-of-control fiscal mismanagement by issuing bills of credit to effectively print money to pay for projects and service debt. As a result of that lack of fiscal discipline, Article I, section 10 of the Constitution specifically deprives States of the power to issue bills of credit. Over 200 years later, it is the Federal Government that has proved its inability to adopt sound fiscal policies, and it is now time to adopt a constitutional restraint on Federal fiscal mismanagement.

Several versions of the balanced budget amendment have been introduced this Congress, including two I introduced this Congress, as I have every Congress for the last decade. H.J. Res. 2, the version we are debating today, is nearly identical to the text that passed the House in 1995 and failed in the Senate by one vote. It requires that total annual outlays not exceed total annual receipts. It also requires a true majority of each Chamber to pass tax increases and a three- fifths majority to raise the debt limit.

Today is the day we can turn proposals into legislative action. Our extraordinary fiscal crisis demands an extraordinary solution. We must rise above partisanship and join together to send a balanced budget amendment to the States for ratification.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and in freeing our children and grandchildren from the burden of a crippling debt they had no hand in creating so they can be free to chart their own futures for themselves and for their own posterity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to set the record straight.

We did indeed hold a hearing on the balanced budget amendment. I do agree with the gentleman from Michigan that the obvious was stated in that hearing, but a hearing was indeed held.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), and I ask unanimous consent that he may control that time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).

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

In closing, let me quote President Ronald Reagan. In his address to the Nation on the fiscal year 1983 Federal budget, he said:

``Only a constitutional amendment will do the job.''

``With the stick of a balanced budget amendment, we can stop government squandering, overtaxing ways, and save our economy.''

A few years, later he said this in his weekly radio address:

``One part of our Founding Fathers' genius was their provision for amending the Constitution. They knew they had created a good document but not a perfect one. In fact, even two centuries ago, some of them, especially Thomas Jefferson, were troubled by one omission: the lack of a limitation on public borrowing by the Federal Government.''

``Well, even in their reservations about the Constitution, the Founding Fathers were perceptive and wise.

``I think most of you know how badly out of control Federal spending has gotten in recent years;''--I'm quoting President Reagan in 1980-- ``today the national debt is $2.25 trillion.''

``. . . I'm one of those Americans who has always believed that a constitutional amendment mandating that Congress balance the budget is the answer to what ails us.''

That was 30 years ago. Today the national debt is over $20 trillion, and President Reagan's words ring 10 times louder as a result.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and in freeing our children and grandchildren from the burden of a crippling debt they had no hand in creating so they and their own children and generations to come can be free to chart their own futures.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment to the United States Constitution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Chairman Thompson. I really appreciate your organizing this Special Order.

I am glad you picked this topic because we need to tell the story of what the great provisions are in this farm bill, but also how important it is to Republicans that we work with America's agricultural community to make sure that we continue to provide the safest, most abundant, most affordable food supply in the world.

Americans today, right now, enjoy one of the lowest percentages of their average income being spent on food of any country in the world, at any time in the world's history. Back when our country was founded, 90 percent of Americans lived on farms and basically produced enough food to just take care of themselves and then maybe have a little bit left over to sell to buy some implement for their family. Today, 2 percent of America's farmers do that, provide all of that food and nutrition, including what goes into these important programs for low- income people. So making sure these programs are protected but also making sure that they work fairly and honestly is the objective of this farm bill.

I want to talk tonight about a program that helps get food directly into the hands of those who are in need in communities throughout the country, including in Virginia's Sixth Congressional District that I have had the honor of representing. The Emergency Food Assistance Program, known as TEFAP, is a Federal program that helps to supplement the diets of low-income Americans, including elderly people, by providing them with emergency food assistance at no cost.

TEFAP provides commodities to the States, who then distribute the food through local agencies, like the Blue Ridge Area Food Bank and Feeding America Southwest Virginia in my district. This program is a good model of efficiency and allows State and local organizations to play a leading role in helping to meet the nutritional needs of those in their communities.

Food banks are an existing, strong network for food delivery to those in need. However, it is also important to note that many farmers often still have excess fruits and vegetables that go to waste. The solution is to establish a farm-to-food bank program, allowing States to enter into agreements with farmers to procure this excess for distribution.

To achieve this, we are expanding funding in H.R. 2 for TEFAP, using a portion of that increase for a farm-to-food bank program, a State- administered agriculture surplus clearance program, that provides an inexpensive source of food for low-income families while supporting producers.

I want to thank Chairman Thompson and Chairman Conaway for their hard work to ensure that TEFAP remains a viable resource for American families.

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your hard work and for organizing this opportunity to share some of the great things in this farm bill with the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4203) to amend title 18, United States Code, with regard to stalking, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4203, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased we are voting on H.R. 4203, the Combat Online Predators Act. This legislation increases the maximum criminal penalty for those who stalk children and obligates the Department of Justice to report best practices for prosecuting stalking laws at the State and local levels.

According to the National Center for Victims of Crime, approximately 7.5 million people are stalked each year. While stalking may not involve physical harm, the psychological effects from being stalked can be just as severe. Stalking victims live in constant fear of violence. They fear it will never stop.

In fact, the prevalence of anxiety, insomnia, social dysfunction, and severe depression is much higher amongst stalking victims than the general population. About half of all victims of stalking indicate that they were stalked before age 25, and about 14 percent of female victims and 16 percent of male victims experienced stalking between the ages of 11 and 17.

Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate reality is that, in the internet age, stalking our Nation's youth has become easier for predators. Predators can now harass children in their homes--the very places our children should be safest--and can even do so anonymously.

H.R. 4203 recognizes that those who stalk minors should be subject to greater criminal penalties. The bill increases the maximum allowable prison sentence by 5 years in cases in which the victim is a minor. No child should live in constant fear for their own safety, and this bill will further deter predators from such conduct.

Stalking cases are also notoriously difficult to prosecute because they require showing repeated intentional harassment. It is important for prosecutors to be able to reference best practices in investigating and prosecuting these cases. Therefore, H.R. 4203 requires the Attorney General to issue a report identifying best practices in bringing these cases.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the lead sponsor of this legislation, Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania. This bill was approved with unanimous, bipartisan support by the House Judiciary Committee, and I urge my colleagues in the House to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), the chief sponsor of the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, only to urge my colleagues to support this very strong, bipartisan legislation.

I want to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy). I want to thank the ranking member of our Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee for her work in this area.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4909) to reauthorize the grant program for school security in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 4909, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 4909, the STOP School Violence Act of 2018. Violence at our schools makes students feel vulnerable in a place where they should feel comfortable to learn, grow, and be happy.

To curb violence at our Nation's schools, the STOP School Violence Act provides a multilayered approach to identify threats and prevent violence from taking place on school grounds.

It provides much-needed resources to train students, teachers, and law enforcement officers on how to recognize and quickly respond to warning signs, and provides funding for technology to keep schools safe.

Eighty percent of school shooters told someone of their violent plans or exhibited warning signs. The bill before us today will ensure that students,

teachers, and law enforcement will learn how to identify at-risk behaviors, properly assess threats, and intervene appropriately before a tragedy strikes.

The STOP School Violence Act provides funding for training to prevent student violence against others and self, including training for local law enforcement officers, school personnel, and students.

Prevention training gives students and school personnel the ability to recognize and respond quickly to warning signs of school violence and includes active shooter training.

The bill provides funding for technology and equipment to improve school security and prevent attacks. This includes the development and operation of anonymous reporting systems, such as mobile apps, a hotline, and a website. Funding may also be used for metal detectors, locks, lighting, and other technologies to keep schools safe.

The bill also supports the acquisition and installation of technology for expedited notification of local law enforcement during an emergency.

The legislation also contains funding for school threat assessment and crisis intervention teams so that school personnel can respond to threats before they materialize.

Finally, the STOP School Violence Act provides funding to support law enforcement coordination efforts and, in particular, those officers who already staff schools.

The version of the bill before us today is the result of a collaborative effort of many of my colleagues who worked with Mr. Rutherford to incorporate many of their ideas.

I would like to point out the important contributions of Representatives Susan Brooks, Coffman, Chabot, Granger, Rodney Davis, Messer, and Bost, including many key elements of legislation that they have introduced into this bill that have made the bill stronger.

Finally, I want to thank Mr. Rutherford and the bipartisan group of cosponsors for their work on this important bill, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4909.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), who is a cosponsor of this legislation and former chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker remaining, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks).

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

Mr. Speaker, compassion, goodwill, and the strong desire to help others in need are all characteristics embodied by my constituents, Brent Berry and his family, of Harrisonburg, Virginia. I am honored to represent the Sixth Congressional District in the House of Representatives, home to kind-hearted and caring Virginians like the Berry family.

This March marks the 10th annual Brent Berry Food Drive. For a decade, Brent has worked countless hours, often in below freezing temperatures, collecting food for local families in his hometown of Harrisonburg. The food drive benefits the Salvation Army, collecting most of the food the organization needs to feed over 300 families per month. In 2017, the Brent Berry Food Drive collected nearly 11,000 food items.

Brent's strong desire to serve the community is remarkable, and he's a familiar face around Harrisonburg. You'll find him outside of grocery stores, shopping centers, and on local university campuses. Brent has also recruited the help of the local fire, police, and sheriff's departments to assist in collecting donations. I've participated in the food drive several times myself, and I am often amazed by the support it receives from friends and neighbors.

And what's most touching is that Brent's partner in service is his father, Bucky, who

once relied on the services from the Salvation Army himself. He recalls living in a shack as a 5-year-old boy, his family not having enough to eat. The same organization that his son now passionately volunteers for provided young Bucky and his family with meals and even presents at Christmas.

Brent's passion for service and selfless nature are unmatched. So much so, that in February of this year, he was presented with a key to the City of Harrisonburg by the City Council. This is a well-deserved honor.

It is hard-working and dedicated volunteers like Brent Berry who make real differences in our communities. I thank Brent, his father Bucky, and his team of volunteers who make the good work of the Salvation Army in Harrisonburg possible. I wish Brent continued success as he works to positively impact the lives of many Virginia families and ensure no family in Harrisonburg goes hungry.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman's good work on this legislation.

In my district and in many rural communities around the country, wood burning stoves and heaters are a popular heat source, and an affordable one as well; and it is a renewable fuel. And I will tell you what: the person who utilizes a wood stove to heat their home is not a special interest.

The EPA's New Source Performance Standards for products like wood and pellet stoves and wood furnaces have raised significant concerns. This regulation sets forth an unrealistic and unachievable timeline for manufacturers of these products to come into compliance with the standards in time.

I have heard from manufacturers and retailers, like England's Stove Works in Amherst County in my district, that it is not that they don't want to comply with the rule, they just simply need more time. For just one wood stove, it can take up to 6 months to complete the EPA certification process.

In the meantime, the availability of wood stoves--the affordability of this heating source for my constituents and other people in mostly rural areas, but other communities as well around the country, is going to go up.

The BRICK Act, before the House today, includes provisions from a bill that I introduced along with Representative Collin Peterson, the Relief from New Source Performance Standards Act. This provision is a simple one. It simply extends the time wood stove manufacturers have to comply with Federal regulations by 3 years.

Affordable heat is important to my constituents, and Federal regulations must take into account the real world needs and time constraints of the industries that make these products and must now develop new technologies.

I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill today to give this industry more time and ensure consumers can choose wood heat sources to help keep their families warm.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1865, the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

This legislation will finally make a meaningful difference in combating online sex trafficking. For too long, bad actor websites have operated with impunity in selling young women and girls forced into the commercial sale of sex. They have, beyond any shadow of a doubt, profited off the misery of others. They have convinced courts to misapply the Communications Decency Act, a Federal law that was originally intended to encourage websites to police content and rid platforms of illegal content. They have misused the Communications Decency Act as a shield to avoid criminal liability in State courts.

Given the number of local websites that are deliberately selling women and children for sex, we must now take steps to allow Federal, State, and local prosecutors to hold these websites accountable and dismantle these illicit, heinous online markets.

H.R. 1865 will ensure vigorous criminal enforcement against bad actor websites by creating a new Federal law to prosecute these sites and explicitly permitting States the ability to enforce comparable laws.

While the Federal code does not criminalize the knowing advertisement of sex trafficking, this statute is, unfortunately, of limited utility. Nearly all websites responsible for rampant sex trafficking advertisements host ads that rarely, if ever, state that the victim being sold is either underage or subject to force, fraud, or coercion.

Therefore, this bill takes measures to target websites that are deliberately promoting and facilitating prostitution.

Additionally, H.R. 1865 provides for an aggravated violation that applies to websites that promote prostitution in reckless disregard of the fact that sex trafficking is occurring on their platform.

I want to highlight, Mr. Chairman, an amendment that will be offered to this legislation. Though I applaud my colleague's dedication to this issue and fully appreciate the suffering of victims, I have concerns about this amendment which states that the provisions of the bill apply regardless of whether the conduct alleged occurred or is alleged to have occurred before, on, or after such date of enactment.

Had regular order been followed, Mr. Chairman, the Judiciary Committee would certainly have fixed this issue, which I believe could subject this legislation to a constitutional challenge under the ex post facto clause, a concern shared by the Justice Department.

I hope we have an opportunity to fix this problem as we move forward with the bill, and I include in the Record a

letter from the Department of Justice highlighting these constitutional concerns.

Office of Legislative Affairs,

U.S. Department of Justice,

Washington, DC, February 27, 2018.

Hon. Robert W. Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter presents the views of the

Department of Justice (Department) on H.R. 1865, the ``Allow

States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of

2017.'' The Department supports H.R. 1865. We applaud House

and Senate legislative efforts to address the use of websites

to facilitate sex trafficking and to protect and restore

victims who were sold for sex online. The Department

appreciates this opportunity to provide technical assistance

to ensure that these goals are fully met through narrowly

tailored legislation. The Department also notes that a

provision in the bill raises a serious constitutional

concern.

Every day, trafficking victims in America appear in online

advertisements that are used to sell them for sex. The

Department works diligently to hold the traffickers

accountable for their crimes but faces serious challenges.

This is due in part to the high evidentiary standard needed

to bring federal criminal charges for advertising sex

trafficking, but also because the Communications Decency Act

(CDA), codified at 47 U.S.C. Sec. 230, bars our state and

local partners from bringing any criminal action that is

inconsistent with that section. H.R. 1865 addresses both

issues and would take meaningful steps to end the industry of

advertising trafficking victims for commercial sex.

Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I will support this bill since its strong reforms will allow State and local prosecutors to vigorously enforce the law against some of the worst criminals in society today.

This bill will allow law enforcement to effectively dismantle this lucrative, expansive, immoral, reprehensible market. Our children and vulnerable women are not commodities to be sold. This legislation emphatically affirms that fact. It will truly make a difference.

I would like to commend my colleague Mrs. Wagner from Missouri and her dedicated staff for their work on this legislation and for their continued dedication to combatting sex trafficking and supporting victims.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

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

This amendment makes small but important changes to the bill.

Most significantly, the bill narrows the class of defendants covered in the new section 2421A, which criminalizes the deliberate promotion or facilitation of prostitution. As the creation of this law is designed to target bad actor websites, this amendment narrows defendants covered to those who own, manage, or operate an interactive computer service with the intent to promote or facilitate prostitution. This amendment avoids creating a broad Federal law that covers conduct that is not necessarily Federal in nature.

Second, the manager's amendment strikes language from the underlying bill's civil recovery provision that was intended to encourage victims to successfully plead their cases. However, the language could have created a risk of confusion by the courts, and so it has been removed.

Further, the manager's amendment clarifies that mandatory restitution provision is only applicable to victims of sex trafficking, not to those who voluntarily have engaged in prostitution.

Finally, the manager's amendment adds language inadvertently omitted from the original bill, which permits defendants who face an aggravated charge for promoting or facilitating more than five people to assert the statute's affirmative defense if a defendant can prove that advertisements were targeted to a locality where promotion or facilitation is legal.

Mr. Chairman, this manager's amendment is the product of the Judiciary Committee's repeated and thoughtful effort to produce a workable and technically sound piece of legislation. This bill will do a great deal to protect victims of sex trafficking. I am proud of the hard work by my colleagues and staff to ensure that the criminal law is appropriately tailored to achieve that goal.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 620.

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

Private enforcement of title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act is a critical tool for disabled individuals to gain access to places like restaurants and shopping centers. Most businessowners, however, feel blindsided when they are sued for violations they were unaware of.

This has been the case even for disabled businessowners who have testified before the House Judiciary Committee. Lee Ky testified in 2016. She runs one of her family's doughnut shops that was sued for technical violations of the ADA because a restroom sign was in the shape of a triangle instead of a square.

A person who has never walked in her life, Ky testified that she is proud of this Nation's effort to improve accessibility by enacting the ADA, but she thinks that businesses should be given an opportunity to remove barriers before getting sued.

Donna and David Batelaan have also testified. They were co-owners of a store that sold accessibility devices in Florida. Despite employing two people who used wheelchairs, despite themselves using wheelchairs, and despite the fact that virtually their entire clientele was composed of customers who had mobility limitations, they were sued because they had not painted lines and posted a sign for a ``handicapped'' spot required by the ADA.

Indeed, according to their testimony, it was later found that they had been just one of many businesses targeted by an unscrupulous, out- of-state attorney. According to Mrs. Batelaan, it did not matter that their parking lot and store were totally accessible. It was greed that was driving these suits.

These examples are among many shared by businesses across the country. The ADA's private right of action, which was originally intended to be the primary enforcement mechanism to achieve greater access, has instead encouraged a cottage industry of costly and wasteful litigation that neither benefits the business nor disabled individuals seeking more accessibility.

A report aired on ``60 Minutes'' on December 4, 2016, for example, featured several small-business owners who were subject to what are known as ``drive-by'' lawsuits. In such lawsuits, commonly filed by opportunistic trial lawyers, the plaintiff need only drive by the property, not actually visit it, to file a lawsuit alleging an ADA violation. In other cases, plaintiffs can even use Google Earth to target alleged violations and, in turn, file lawsuits before even notifying a small-business owner of the problem.

The fact that these types of small businesses are ill-equipped to defend an ADA lawsuit is the reason why they are sued. Indeed, opportunistic attorneys are more often willing to settle for just less than it would cost those mom-and-pop businesses to defend themselves in court. According to a 2017 op-ed published in The Hill, a conservative estimate of the average settlement amount is $7,500.

Given that plaintiff attorneys' motive is often to line their own pockets, there is little or no incentive to work with businesses to cure a violation before a lawsuit is filed. This results in wasted resources that could have been used to improve access.

H.R. 620 is a commonsense solution because it gives businesses a fair chance to cure title III violations before they are forced into a lawsuit, while still preserving the power of the threat of a lawsuit when businesses fail to make the required fixes in a timely manner.

H.R. 620 will create more access for more Americans more quickly because businesses would much rather fix an access problem quickly than face an unpredictable and expensive lawsuit that could hurt their ability to expand access in other ways.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense reform, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman from New York.

In point of fact, the United States Code contains several examples in which a potential plaintiff must provide notice before filing a lawsuit.

For example, title I of the ADA, in fact, requires a plaintiff to first file an administrative complaint with the EEOC. Unlike a complaint filed in Federal court, it is a method for parties to try to resolve the case before litigation through a conciliation process. As part of this process, the complainant is required to fill out a form that puts the recipient on notice of the alleged issues. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act has a similar process.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters), the primary cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to respond to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Opponents of this bill claim it will delay access in some cases, even if just by a few months. But under current law, unscrupulous lawyers already delay filing ADA complaints for months after alleged violations are discovered, simply to boost their claim for attorneys' fees based on hours worked.

Here is an affidavit from a former ADA lawyer showing his firm fraudulently and routinely waited months to alert businessowners of potential violations and file lawsuits so they could falsely claim many hours of work preparing the case when no such work was required. Here is what the lawyer testified to:

The alleged time entries at issue in this case include

authorizing discovery 6 months in advance of the case being

filed. I told Mr. Lopez, the real person in charge, this

practice was useless. Mr. Lopez's response was that

increasing legal fees was what I was supposed to do.

This means that, today, there are months of unnecessary delays before the businessowner is even notified of a violation so they can begin working on fixing the problem. That is an additional delay of months that this bill will eliminate.

The bottom line is that, in ADA cases, lawyers routinely delay filing lawsuits to boost their fees. This bill will stop that practice and let that time and money be used instead to increase access, not pad the pockets of unethical lawyers.

This bill will provide access months sooner than under current law. This is a pro-civil rights bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, they oppose our bill to increase sanctions on unethical lawyers.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

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

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the affidavit that I cited in my earlier remarks.

United States District Court Southern District of Florida

Case No. 1:17-cv-24116-KMM

Enrique Madrinan, Plaintiff, v. Harbour Shopping Center,

Inc. and Luza Corp. d/b/a Donut Gallery Diner, Defendants.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentleman from Maryland.

The technical requirements of title III are constantly changing. We have seen numerous revisions to both regulations and guidance, not to mention the resulting case law that affects its interpretation; therefore, the regulatory requirements of the ADA in 1991 are not the same as those today.

There is no better example of these changes than the rise of the internet, which came into its current existence after the ADA was enacted. As people no longer need a physical storefront to have a business, the courts have struggled to apply the ADA's public accommodation requirements.

There is, for example, a current circuit split as to whether companies operating exclusively online are subject to these requirements. And with continued advancements in technology, we will continue to see changes to the regulatory requirements.

It is perfectly reasonable for small-business owners, many of whom are disabled themselves or of minorities, to have the opportunity to fix a problem before a predatory lawyer simply brings an action for the purpose of recovering--not fixing the problem, but getting money that could have been better spent by that small business fixing the problem.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no speakers remaining other than myself and I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the House Judiciary Committee, over decades, has heard testimony from many disabled owners of businesses, several of whom have testified before the committee who themselves have been extorted by trial lawyers to pay thousands of dollars to lawyers. That money could have been spent on making small adjustments to the premises to easily overlooked technical violations.

Let me give you an example. Take the testimony of Donna Batelaan, who owned a store for the disabled, and herself used a wheelchair. It was a store devoted entirely to selling accessibility devices and similar items.

She was made to pay $2,000 in attorneys' fees for a simple fix that cost $100. Clearly, Mrs. Batelaan was deeply interested in accommodating the disabled, yet she, too, was caught up in a legal shakedown.

She said the following before the House Judiciary Committee: ``We have co-owned a mobility equipment business in south Florida for the last 20 years. Our parking lot and our building are totally wheelchair accessible. We employ two people who use wheelchairs, and we ourselves use wheelchairs, and all of our customers have mobility limitation. We had not painted the lines and posted a sign on''--just one of the-- ``handicapped spot that is required by ADA. An attorney from New Jersey, without notice, filed a suit against us. It cost us less than $100 to correct the infractions and $2,000 for attorneys' fees.''

``The original intent of ADA was to provide access and opportunity to American life for all people with disabilities, not to give the legal profession an opportunity to make more money.''

As Abraham Lincoln's name was mentioned previously, I want to quote him on the subject of unnecessary and wasteful litigation. In his notes on a

law lecture he delivered, here is what Abraham Lincoln had to say: ``Discourage litigation. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser--in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peacemaker, the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough.''

And finally, to that same point, I have to say it is simply ethical practice for lawyers to give a business a heads-up of a potential violation before a lawsuit is filed.

There are many other examples in Federal law where that notice to the defendant to cure, including in civil rights actions, is afforded. It should be afforded here as well.

Indeed, the vast majority of lawyers do what this bill requires as a matter of simple ethical lawyering. But many lawyers don't act professionally, and they abuse the law to shake down businesses, taking money away from compliance and putting it into their own pockets.

All this bill does is require those unscrupulous trial lawyers to do what ethical lawyers already do: give fair notice of a violation before thousands of dollars in attorneys' fees are racked up against a small business, diverting money away from accessibility where it belongs.

Mr. Chairman, this is the right correction addressing this problem. It will enhance accessibility, it will encourage more work to be done, and it will not deprive anybody the opportunity to notify people that they have a problem with accessibility at their business. If they don't fix it, they will then be the subject of that very lawsuit.

But the opportunity to fix it in a prompt fashion is, I think, critically important to making accessibility more available and helping small businesses in America to succeed, thrive, and create even more jobs for people with those disabilities.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, but I do not oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to first commend the gentleman from California for addressing this issue. He is quite right that it is important that, in order to expeditiously make sure that accommodations for the disabled are made, people have to understand what those requirements are. The regulations on this change frequently and constantly.

I do not oppose this amendment. In fact, I support it. I would ask the gentleman if he would work with us moving forward to make sure that this does not impose an inordinate burden on the bureaucracy responsible for putting this out so as to delay getting new regulations to protect the ADA folks out.

There are many languages spoken by people in various businesses in this country. Some are very common, and that is definitely the case, but we may not have this written in every single language that is spoken by every single individual.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I must oppose this amendment because it would completely gut the notice and cure provisions, which are the core provisions of this bill. The need for a notice and cure period has been highlighted in congressional hearings since the early 2000s.

In 2016, David Weiss, who testified on behalf of the International Council of Shopping Centers, stated:

The problem that the private sector faces is an increasing

number of lawsuits typically brought by a few plaintiffs in

various jurisdictions and often by the same lawyers for very

technical and usually minor violations. It has become all too

common for property owners to settle these cases, as it is

less expensive to settle them than to defend them, even if

the property owner is compliant. It is often too costly to

prove that a property owner is doing what is right or

required. Therefore, the property owner makes a rational

business decision commonly resulting in settlement.

Mr. Chairman, given that plaintiffs' attorneys' motives are often monetary, there is little or no incentive to work with businesses to cure a violation before a lawsuit is filed. This unintended result wastes resources on the cost of litigation that could have been used to improve access sooner. This delays justice.

H.R. 620 remedies these problems by allowing businesses a finite period of time, before a private enforcement lawsuit can be filed, to fix defects on their premises once they are notified that these premises do not comply with the ADA.

This will reduce abuses of the law by opportunistic lawyers. It will result in more access for the disabled because it encourages businesses to cure their access issues now in order to avoid costly litigation later.

Mr. Chair, I would also note that made in order is an amendment coming up that would reduce this amount of time by 2 months, the total amount of time for notice and cure.

I think that is a good step to address the concerns raised, but I cannot support an amendment that completely takes away the purpose of the legislation, which is to give small-business owners the opportunity to cure a problem once they are made aware of it. Many of these are very technical violations of the law designed primarily to line the pockets of some unscrupulous lawyers, as opposed to really helping advance the cause of accessibility.

For those reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, as I indicated, because the ADA is a regulation-based law, and those regulations are constantly changing as new technology changes and as accessibility to new features that businesses offer are desired by those in the disability community.

That is a necessary thing, but it is also necessary to make sure that businesses have time to accommodate as well and learn about those new requirements and have the opportunity to fix it before somebody can just get attorney's fees for something that is going to be done anyway.

So I think the better approach is to oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill with the addition of an amendment coming up that would reduce that time by 2 months.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Alabama, a member of the Judiciary Committee, for her outstanding work on this issue.

Today, thousands of people are rallying in the Nation's Capital to be part of the March for Life and to join a celebration of hope and compassion for those who do not yet have a voice and to save the lives of the unborn.

Many millions more have viewed videos of representatives of Planned Parenthood, which performs some 40 percent of all abortions each year. Those videos, recorded undercover, sadly portray a much darker side of our society. They show discussions of the exchange of money for the body parts of aborted babies. They also include discussions of instances during which in course of an attempted abortion, a baby is born intact and then shipped to a lab for the use of its body parts.

Congress must move immediately to protect any children born alive during the course of a failed abortion.

The bill before us today provides that in the case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive, any healthcare practitioner present must exercise the same degree of professional care to preserve the life of the child as he or she would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.

The bill also provides that the child must be immediately-- immediately--transported and admitted to a hospital. If a baby alive is left to die, the penalty can be up to 5 years in jail. If the child is cut open for its body parts or if some other overt act is taken, the punishment is that for first-degree murder, which must include life in prison or the death penalty.

Babies are born alive during failed abortions. The House Judiciary Committee heard direct testimony by two grown women who, as babies, survived attempted abortions. Gianna Jessen's mother was advised by Planned Parenthood to have an abortion. But as Ms. Jessen testified: ``Instead of dying, I was delivered alive in an abortion clinic in Los Angeles.'' Her medical records state clearly that she was born alive during an abortion.

She continued to say: ``Thankfully, the abortionist was not at work yet. Had he been there, he would have ended my life with strangulation, suffocation, or leaving me there to die. I was later diagnosed with cerebral palsy, which was caused by a lack of oxygen to my brain while surviving the abortion. I was never supposed to hold my head up or walk. I do. And cerebral palsy is a great gift to me.''

Just think of that for a moment. Ms. Jessen says cerebral palsy is a gift to her because it came with the gift of life. She forgave her mother long ago and gives praise each day for that gift of life, which she enjoys to its fullest to this day.

Ms. Jessen presented a picture at the hearing showing the results of the sort of abortion she survived.

I urge my colleagues to support the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act so others who survive failed abortions can have the same chance to be as thankful as Ms. Jessen and to support all efforts to save the unborn as well.

Mr. Speaker, during my service in Congress, I have had the great opportunity to meet men and women in Virginia's Sixth Congressional District who exemplify what it means to serve. One of these individuals is Beverly T. ``Bev'' Fitzpatrick, Jr. I've had the great honor of knowing Bev for many years, and I have seen just how much of an impact he has had on the Roanoke region.

Bev grew up in South Roanoke. He graduated from Virginia Tech in 1970 and went on to serve in the United States Army. After his time in the military, Bev returned home to Roanoke. Over the years, he has worked in a variety of fields, including finance, economic development, education, public television, and

transportation--impacting western Virginia in his own unique way in each position. He even served on the Roanoke City Council. It would be difficult to convince me that there is something Bev has not done, and done well for that fact.

After serving as the head of the Virginia Museum of Transportation in Roanoke for 11 years, Bev retired from his post of Executive Director on December 31, 2017. During this time, he oversaw the complete turnaround of the museum. Attendance increased from 12,000 to about 50,000 visitors a year. The staff grew and the annual operations budget more than doubled. Thanks to his dedication, the museum highlights Virginia's transportation history as well as the Roanoke region's rich rail heritage. Without Bev's leadership the Virginia Museum of Transportation would not be the well-known and respected place it is today.

Bev was also instrumental in bringing the historic Norfolk & Western Class J 611 steam engine back online. In 2015, after much hard work and multiple rounds of negotiations, the 611 began operating passenger rail excursions, attracting railroad enthusiasts from around the world and across the country and local families alike. It is America's railroad history brought to life.

Bev Fitzpatrick's legacy is one of service. His love for transportation and the Roanoke Valley is seen in every comer of the museum, inside and out. I want to thank him for making the museum his final destination in a career of service to the community. It's been a true pleasure to work closely with him over the years on so many ventures that have benefitted Virginia's Blue Ridge region. I know Bev and his wife, Shirley, look forward to some much-deserved time off to spend with one another and their family and friends.

Congratulations on a well-earned retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).

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

Mr. Speaker, as you all know, the Judiciary Committee worked diligently for a year on legislation that does two things: one, protect Americans' civil liberties by requiring a court order to access section 702 data during domestic criminal investigations; and, two, reauthorize the 702 program, which is our Nation's most indispensable national security tool.

We achieved that by passing the USA Liberty Act in the House Judiciary Committee last year by an overwhelming bipartisan vote, which is no easy task; however, we were able to responsibly balance civil liberties with national security.

The bill we will vote on today was drafted in the spirit of the USA Liberty Act. It is not perfect and the process getting here was not ideal, but the bill requires, for the first time, a warrant to access section 702-collected communications on U.S. persons in criminal investigations.

Moreover, in routine criminal cases, when the FBI accesses U.S. person communications that were incidentally collected without first obtaining a warrant, the FBI will not be permitted to use those communications in a criminal prosecution. This will prevent a national security tool from advancing run-of-the-mill criminal prosecutions.

These are meaningful reforms. The bill that was presented to us before Christmas with its optional warrant construct was not real reform. The bill we are debating today, however, contains meaningful reforms.

I would have preferred to include additional reforms, but I cannot stress to my colleagues enough that our choice cannot be between a perfect reform bill and expiration of this program. The 702 program is far too important for that. With this bill, we can have meaningful reform and reauthorization. In its current form, this bill will pass the Senate.

I also want to caution everyone that we cannot go too far in seeking to alter this program. There is an amendment that will be offered sponsored by Mr. Amash and Ms. Lofgren that would prevent the FBI from ever querying its 702 database using a U.S. person term.

Imagine the FBI getting a tip from a flight instructor whose student acts suspiciously by expressing great interest in learning how to take off and fly a plane but has no interest in learning how to land the plane. This could be innocent behavior, but we want law enforcement to at least be able to perform a search to see if they already have, in their possession, any communications between the student and a foreign actor involved in organizing terrorist plots.

The Judiciary Committee-passed bill would have allowed the search and allowed law enforcement to view the metadata without a warrant while requiring a warrant to view the content of the communications.

The Amash-Lofgren amendment, which was rejected in the Judiciary Committee, goes too far and would prevent such a search from even being done. It would, thus, kill this critical program by preventing the FBI from even looking at its own databases without a warrant, rendering it ineffective in preventing terrorist attacks and stifling its ability to gather necessary intelligence. It must not be adopted.

I will vote to support this bill. I will oppose the Amash-Lofgren amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me. Vote for reform and reauthorization.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, in response to those who advocate for the Amash-Lofgren amendment, this amendment will very, very seriously damage our national security. Section 702 is a program for which there is no evidence of abuse and is used to gather information about non-United States citizens outside the United States. In a targeted fashion, they have to go to the court and get approval for the selectors to gather information on a quarterly basis. They gather information incidental to that. Sometimes there is information about United States citizens.

But guess what. The information does not come with little labels attached saying: this is a United States citizen communicating here, or the communication involves someone in the United States.

Therefore, it is absolutely vitally important that we not impair the most important electronic intelligence-gathering mechanism that the United States has to keep us safe. Oppose the Amash amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have only one speaker remaining to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee, to close the debate on this side.

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

This amendment, plain and simple, would disable 702, our most important national security tool. If passed, any chance of reform through the underlying bill is dead on arrival in the United States Senate. We cannot risk 702 collection ending.

This Chamber cannot be complicit in allowing terrorists to fly under the radar if this amendment kills 702, and I sincerely urge you to oppose the Amash amendment and not lose the opportunity to successfully balance national security and civil liberties, which is what the underlying bill does.

We definitely need to have a move toward more protection of our Fourth Amendment rights, and a warrant requirement in domestic criminal cases and a requirement that if you are doing a national security investigation and you find that the information is useful in a criminal case and it is precluded from court are two major improvements to our 702 law that protect Americans' civil liberties.

This bill must be passed. It is absolutely essential for our protection. It surveys people outside of the United States who are not United States citizens. The fact that it collects incidental information about U.S. citizens should not be a prohibition on this effort. But if you apply this amendment, you are not going to be able to have our national intelligence officials looking at this information carefully, and they are going to have to, in many instances, get a warrant when they need to act because they think it is a national security concern. A warrant either will be unattainable or it will be in a circumstance where it is too late, and, in both instances, we cannot allow that.

This bill provides balance. That bill goes too far. The amendment goes too far. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, let me pose a hypothetical about the Amash amendment. In the criminal world, if an FBI agent is told through a tip that someone has just purchased unusual amounts of fertilizer that could be used to make a bomb, the Amash amendment would prevent that FBI agent from looking at the FBI's databases to determine if the suspicious individual's email address or other identifier--not the content of the email, just the email address or identifier--is located in the 702 database.

What would the American people say if we hamper our law enforcement from protecting them? What would people of this country say if we had another Murrah Building blow up and the FBI couldn't look at even an email address?

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the Speaker of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate a distinguished public servant, and one of the ``dedicated men and women of law enforcement.'' Mr. Arthur Radford Baker, Jr., will retire from the Federal Bureau of Investigation on December 31 of this year, after 30 years of service.

During his tenure at the FBI, Art has served in various capacities. He has led colleagues as a supervisor on counterintelligence and espionage matters out of the Baltimore Field Office, using sophisticated investigative techniques straight out of Hollywood spy thrillers. He has investigated organized crime, including La Cosa Nostra and Asian and Russian syndicates, out of the Detroit Field Office. Art even attained the highest marksmanship award the Bureau has to offer, qualifying for his name to be enshrined on a wall at Quantico as part of the FBI's elite ``Possible Club.'' In large part, though, it has been Art's service to our country as a Congressional detailee that stands out as one his fondest memories, including many legislative successes to which he contributed that are now memorialized and framed as ``redlines'' of passed laws.

Art served faithfully for nearly 3 years as a detailee from the FBI to the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. During his tenure, Art was a consistently reliable and capable staffer and legal counsel, and a great colleague. He was particularly beloved by our departed colleague and friend, the gentleman from North Carolina, Congressman Howard Coble.

In his work at the Judiciary Committee, Art staffed Chairman Lamar Smith and Subcommittee Chairman Coble for a multitude of assignments, including issues that spanned a spectrum of pressing matters, including Patriot Act hearings and legislation on child exploitation and trafficking. Art was a dedicated, crucial staffer upon whom Members could rely.

After returning to the FBI, Art served with distinction in the Office of Congressional Affairs (OCA). His service in OCA spanned a transitional era in American history, including the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the espionage leaks of Robert Hanssen, and the resulting reformulation of the FBI. Through it all, Art was a vital cog in our nation's premier law enforcement agency, and a steadfast friend to the Judiciary Committee. It is often said in Washington that legislating is the ``art'' of the possible. How appropriate that we say that today.

Throughout his career, Art Baker has been a loyal public servant. For years, my staff has relied on his insight, his wise counsel, and his consistent ability to make us laugh. Many marvel at his various skills and interests, earning him a legitimate moniker as a ``Renaissance Man.'' We expect that the forthcoming stage of his life in retirement will not be any less varied or adventurous.

I salute Art for his many years of distinguished service.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1730) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for the protection of community centers with religious affiliation, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1730, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Protecting Religiously Affiliated Institutions Act of 2017 is a bill designed to address recent attacks on religious institutions. It amends the Church Arson Prevention Act to clarify that the act covers religious real property, such as religious community centers. It also increases the penalty for destruction of property offenses on religious property where the conduct results in more than $5,000 in damages to the property.

This legislation is a direct response to the recent onslaught of bomb threats to various synagogues, mosques, churches, and religious community centers. In 2017, there have been more than 100 reported bomb threats against Jewish community centers, Jewish day schools, and other Jewish organizations and institutions in more than 38 States. Islamic centers and mosques have been burned in the States of Texas, Washington, and Florida. We must send the message that any attempt to instill fear in a religious community will not be tolerated.

From its inception, our country has recognized that freedom of religion is a fundamental right. It is just as important to protect this right today, if not more so. We must continue to ensure that the American people can continue to practice their faith without obstruction.

I commend Representative David Kustoff and Representative Derek Kilmer for introducing this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff), the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is good, bipartisan legislation to protect the religious freedom of people of all faiths. It is particularly important that we stand up at a time when some religious faiths are under particular pressure from those who would attempt to smother their ability to freely exercise their religious beliefs by intimidation. This legislation speaks strongly to that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Members on both sides of the aisle. I thank Mr. Kustoff, Mr. Kilmer, and others for their good work.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 645, I call up the bill (H.R. 38) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 38.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.

Mr. Speaker, throughout my career in elected office, I have believed in and adhered to two fundamental principles regarding firearms policy: first, the right guaranteed to law-abiding Americans by the Second Amendment must be aggressively protected and preserved; second, the laws we have on the books need to be enforced to the fullest extent possible. The bipartisan bill before us today does both.

H.R. 38 ensures that law-abiding citizens' Second Amendment right does not end when they cross State lines. The bill allows law-abiding gun owners with valid State-issued concealed carry firearm permits or those who live in so-called constitutional carry States to carry a concealed firearm in any other State that also allows concealed carry.

We know that citizens who carry a concealed firearm are not only better prepared to act in their own self-defense, but also in the defense of others. Take, for instance, an incident that occurred just last November on a highway in Florida. Lee County Sheriff's Deputy Dean Bardes had just concluded a high-speed chase just off Interstate 75. As Deputy Bardes approached to apprehend the suspect, the suspect, Edward Strother, violently attacked Deputy Bardes.

A witness on the scene told reporters that the attacker ``just started punching him and hitting and hitting and hitting. I was afraid for the police officer. I thought he was going to kill him.''

Fortunately for Deputy Bardes, Ashad Russell, a Florida concealed carry permit holder, was also watching the attack unfold. Mr. Russell pulled his gun and approached the altercation. He told Strother he would shoot him if he didn't stop beating the deputy. The State Attorney's Office said Strother ignored Russell's commands to stop beating the deputy, so Russell fired his gun three times, hitting and fatally wounding the assailant. Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott has hailed Russell as a hero.

Importantly, this bill also contains the Fix NICS Act of 2017. This is a bipartisan and bicameral measure. The Fix NICS Act takes steps to ensure that State and Federal agencies enter all relevant records into the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This bill will help ensure people who are legally prohibited from having guns, like those with violent felony convictions, do not obtain them.

The shooting at Virginia Tech and the church shootings in Charleston, South Carolina, and Sutherland Springs, Texas, are tragic reminders of what can happen when all relevant records are not entered into the system.

Our NICS system is only as good as the information within it. This important piece of legislation will ensure that more of the information already required to be uploaded to NICS under current law is actually placed in the NICS system.

Taken together, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act and the Fix NICS Act preserve and protect the right guaranteed to us by the Second Amendment and ensure that those prohibited by existing law from receiving a firearm are prevented from doing so.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

I want to thank the lead sponsor, Mr. Hudson of North Carolina, for his hard work on this bill. I would also like to thank the authors of the Fix NICS provisions, Mr. Culberson and Mr. Cuellar, for their important contributions to the legislation before us today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson), the lead sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds, and I include in the Record an article entitled, `` `Good Samaritan' Kills Active Shooter in Texas Sports Bar,'' in which a shooter with two guns and two knives entered a sports bar and was shot by an individual that the police labeled a Good Samaritan who happened to be eating at the restaurant with his wife. He was a concealed carry permit holder. He told his wife to get down on the ground, and then he shot the assailant.

[From nbcnews.com, May 4, 2017]

`Good Samaritan' Kills Active Shooter in Texas Sports Bar: Police

(By Phil McCausland)

A ``good Samaritan'' with a gun killed an active shooter

who may have been gearing up for a deadly rampage at a Texas

sports bar Wednesday night, police said.

When 48-year-old James Jones walked inside the Zona

Caliente Sports Bar, started yelling and then allegedly shot

and killed Cesar Perez--a 37-year-old restaurant manager

who'd attempted to calm him down--Arlington police said

witnesses were afraid they would be next.

In addition to the gun used to kill Perez, police say Jones

had another semiautomatic pistol and two knives on him. The

serial number on the second gun had been scratched off, and

Jones did not have a gun license, police said.

``He definitely had the capacity, if he wanted, to commit

further violence and potentially kill other patrons in the

business,'' Arlington Police Lieutenant Chris Cook told NBC

News, adding that it did not appear that the shooter knew his

victim.

An armed ``good Samaritan''--as the Arlington Police

labeled him--happened to be eating at the restaurant with his

wife. A concealed carry permit holder, he told her to get

down on the ground and then shot Jones in the back.

``I don't think the shooter even knew where the rounds were

coming from because he started shooting at the front door,''

Cook said, who described the scene as ``chaotic.''

Police reviewed video surveillance and pieced together the

incident via witness interviews, but it remains unclear how

many shots were fired by either individual. Police were

looking into Jones' background to see whether he suffered

from any mental illnesses and were awaiting test results to

find out if he was under the influence.

The man who took down Jones wished to maintain his

anonymity, police said, noting that he felt overwhelmed but

relieved that he prevented further violence.

``We're thankful that the good `Samaritan' acted quickly

and decisively to end the threat,'' Cook said. ``We never

recommend people get involved. That's a personal decision

that a citizen has to make.''

Use of force and firearms expert Emanuel Kapelsohn told NBC

News that, from his understanding, the man who took down the

shooter reacted appropriately.

``I think it's to be applauded,'' he said. ``Not everybody

in the world ought to own a gun. Not everybody in the world

ought to carry a gun. Not everyone in the world ought to

engage an armed criminal where innocent people could be

potentially injured.''

``But this good Samaritan obviously had the ability to do

what he did,'' Kapelsohn added. ``Who knows how many people

would be dead if he had not acted?''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to include in the Record a letter signed by 23 of those States' attorneys general who say, in part, in this letter: ``Strong evidence indicates that concealed carry permit holders actually deter and reduce crime.'' This is taking action by passing this legislation.

Attorney General of Missouri,

Jefferson City, MO, December 1, 2017.

Re Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (S.

446) and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R.

38).

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Chuck Schumer,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressional Leaders: As the chief legal officers of

our States, we, the undersigned 23 state Attorneys General,

write in support of the Constitutional Concealed Carry

Reciprocity Act of 2017 (S. 446) and the Concealed Carry

Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38). We share a strong interest

in the protection of our citizens' Second Amendment right to

keep and bear arms, and we are committed to supporting

federal and state policies to preserve that constitutional

right. These bills, if enacted, would eliminate significant

obstacles to the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms

for millions of Americans in every State.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides an

individual right to own and carry a firearm for self-defense.

The Amendment states that ``[a] well regulated Militia, being

necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the

people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'' U.S.

Const. amend. II. As the Supreme Court recognized in District

of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008), the Second

Amendment ``guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and

carry weapons in case of confrontation.'' Indeed,

``individual self-defense is `the central component' of the

Second Amendment right.'' McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561

U.S. 742, 767 (2010) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599).

The core interest protected by this right is self-defense

by law-abiding citizens. This right therefore extends to

weapons ``in common use'' and ``typically possessed by law-

abiding citizens for lawful purposes.'' Heller, 554 U.S. at

624-25, 627 (quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174,

179 (1939)).

The Second Amendment historically has guaranteed the right

to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense. In

Heller, the Supreme Court relied on the preeminent authority

on English law for the founding generation, William

Blackstone, who explained that the right to self-defense,

codified by the framers in the Second Amendment, was an

``individual right protecting against both public and private

violence.'' Heller, 554 U.S. at 594 (citations omitted). As

Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have written, `` `[s]elf-defense

has to take place wherever the person happens to be,' and in

some circumstances a person may be more vulnerable in a

public place than in his own house.'' Peruta v. California,

137 S. Ct. 1995, 1998-99 (2017) (Thomas, J., and Gorsuch, J.,

dissenting from the denial of certiorari) (quoting Eugene

Volokh, Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for

Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda,

56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443, 1515 (2009)).

To be sure, the right to carry firearms for self-defense is

not unlimited, and the Supreme Court has stated that its

decisions do not cast doubt on the ``longstanding

prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the

mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in

sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or

laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial

sale of arms.'' Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-27. But these

exceptions all assume that the right to carry a weapon in

self-defense applies in public places generally.

The Second Amendment, moreover, applies to both the Federal

Government and the States. The Second Amendment is a right

``fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,'' and so it

applies not just to the Federal Government but also to the

States under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment. McDonald, 561 U.S. at 767; see also Caetano v.

Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1027 (2016) (per curiam).

Nevertheless, some activist courts have held that the

Second Amendment has no application at all outside the home,

and thus have upheld state laws banning any firearm ownership

outside the home. See, e.g., Peruta v. California, 137 S. Ct.

1995, 1997, 1999 (2017) (Thomas, J. and Gorsuch, J.,

dissenting from

the denial of certiorari) (collecting cases); e.g., Williams

v. State, 10 A.3d 1167, 1177 (Md. 2011); Mack v. United

States, 6 A.3d 1224, 1236 (D.C. 2010). Further, ten states

refuse to recognize any out-of-state concealed carry permits,

and many more refuse to recognize out-of-state concealed

carry permits unless certain conditions are met.

The citizen interest in self-defense, supported and

protected by the Second Amendment, is called into serious

question by such blanket refusals to permit carrying firearms

in self-defense outside the home or to allow non-resident

visitors to carry concealed weapons. Because some States

refuse to give the Second Amendment its full import, Congress

should enact concealed-carry reciprocity legislation, to help

implement and enforce the constitutional right to self-

defense for millions of law-abiding Americans across the

country.

The exercise of Congress's power is particularly warranted

in this case because the States that refuse to allow law-

abiding, non-resident visitors to carry concealed weapons

place their occupants in greater danger--not less--from gun

violence. These States leave citizens without any real option

for self-defense, and so it is not surprising that they have

been unable to show that their regulations reduce crime.

Authorizing permit holders to carry across state lines will

not result in an increased risk of crime. Concealed carry

permit holders are among the most law-abiding members of

society, and those States that allow for reciprocal

concealed-carry permits have not encountered any significant

safety issues. In Texas, for example, state data on permit

holders shows that, compared to the general public, they are

``ten times less likely to commit a crime, eleven times less

likely to commit an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon,

and seven times less likely to commit deadly conduct with a

firearm.'' Kevin Ballard, Peruta v. County of San Diego: An

Individual Right to Self-Defense Outside the Home and the

Application of Strict Scrutiny to Second Amendment

Challenges, 47 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 25, 59 (2017).

Further, strong evidence indicates that concealed-carry

permit holders actually deter and reduce crime. Those who

engage in lawful and licensed concealed carry are not only

less likely to be involved in criminal activity themselves,

but their presence also deters others from engaging in

violent crime. See John R. Lott, Jr., More Guns, Less Crime

(University of Chicago Press, 3d ed. 2010). County-level data

for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, the period in

which many concealed-carry laws took effect, shows annual

reductions in murder rates between 1.5 percent and 2.3

percent for each additional year that a right-to-carry law

was in effect, and the total economic benefit from reduced

crimes usually ranges between approximately $2 billion and $3

billion per year. Florenz Plassmann & John Whitley,

Confirming ``More Guns, Less Crime,'' 55 Stan. L. Rev. 1313

(2003). ``Violent crime falls after right-to-carry laws are

adopted, with bigger drops the longer the right-to-carry laws

are in effect.'' John R. Lott, Jr., What a Balancing Test

Will Show for Right-to-Carry Laws, 71 Md. L. Rev. 1205, 1212

(2012).

Our experience as attorneys general further reinforces this

data. Law-abiding individuals who choose to exercise their

constitutional right to carry a firearm for self-defense

promote public safety. Our states have chosen to respect the

rights of residents and non-residents alike to carry arms for

their defense, and we ask Congress to protect the same rights

of our law-abiding residents as they travel throughout the

United States.

States should not be able to deny citizens of other States

the basic constitutional right to self-defense. We thus urge

Congress to enact legislation such as the Constitutional

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (S. 446) or the

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38). These

bills aim to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to

carry a concealed handgun. They do not allow for carrying

firearms by felons, those involuntarily committed to mental

health facilities, and other persons prohibited by federal

law from possessing or receiving firearms. And these bills

would not prevent States from allowing governmental and

private entities to preclude concealed carry on their own

property.

As the Supreme Court held in McDonald, it is

``unmistakably'' true that ``the Second Amendment right to

keep and bear arms'' is ``fundamental to our scheme of

ordered liberty'' and ``deeply rooted in this Nation's

history and tradition.'' McDonald, 561 U.S. at 767-68.

Congress should act to safeguard and implement this deeply

rooted right for those traveling across state lines.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this legislation.

As the chief legal and law enforcement officers of our

respective States, we urge Congress to pass this important

legislation implementing one of the most basic American

freedoms, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Very truly yours,

Joshua D. Hawley, Missouri Attorney General; Steve

Marshall, Alabama Attorney General; Mark Brnovich, Arizona

Attorney General; Leslie Rutledge, Arkansas Attorney General;

Pamela Jo Bondi, Florida Attorney General; Chris Carr,

Georgia Attorney General; Lawrence Wasden, Idaho Attorney

General; Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Indiana Attorney General; Derek

Schmidt, Kansas Attorney General; Jeff Landry, Louisiana

Attorney General; Bill Schuette, Michigan Attorney General;

Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General.

Doug Peterson, Nebraska Attorney General; Adam Paul Laxalt,

Nevada Attorney General; Wayne Stenehjem, North Dakota

Attorney General; Mike DeWine, Ohio Attorney General; Alan

Wilson, South Carolina Attorney General; Marty J. Jackley,

South Dakota Attorney General; Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney

General; Sean Reyes, Utah Attorney General; Patrick Morrisey,

West Virginia Attorney General; Brad D. Schimel, Wisconsin

Attorney General; Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to include in the Record two articles, one from Tennessee and one from Florida, in which concealed carry permit holders stopped dead in their tracks people who were going to commit murder.

[From www.wsmv.com, Oct. 8, 2017]

Usher Being Called ``Hero'' for Helping to Stop Antioch Church Shooter

(By Edward Burch)

Antioch, TN.--Robert Caleb Engle is being hailed as a hero

after helping to stop the accused gunman during the shooting

at Burnette Chapel Church of Christ in Antioch on Sunday.

According to police and witnesses at the scene, Engle, who

is an usher at the church, confronted the accused shooter,

Emanuel Kidega Samson. Engle was then pistol-whipped by

Samson. The two got into a scuffle before Samson shot himself

in the chest.

Engle, who has a carry permit, went out to his car to get a

gun, despite suffering a head injury.

Engle then went back inside the church to confront Samson

and held him at gunpoint until authorities arrived.

Engle, 22, declined an on-camera interview but did send a

statement.

When complimented about his heroism, Engle said, ``I do not

want to be labeled a hero. The real heroes are the police,

first responders, medical staff and doctors who have helped

me and everyone affected.''

``I've been going to this church my whole life,'' Engle

said ``I would have never, ever thought something like this

would have happened.''

``(He's) just an outstanding young man, even before

today,'' said Tammy Adcock, one of Engle's neighbors. ``Today

just proved his character.''

Engle also asked for prayers for not just the victims, but

for the shooter and the shooter's family.

``They are hurting as well,'' Engle said.

Engle and 64-year-old Catherine Dickerson were taken to

Skyline Medical Center with non-life-threatening injuries.

Both Engle and Dickerson have since been released from the

hospital.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to point out that the attorney general of the State of Texas has signed a letter, along with 22 other State attorneys general, in support of this legislation and pointing out that authorized permit holders to carry across State lines will not result in an increased risk of crime. Further, strong evidence indicates that concealed carry permit holders actually deter and reduce crime.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), who is the lead Democratic cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) for the purpose of closing the argument.

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, with this motion to recommit, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying in vain to hamper the passage of this important legislation. H.R. 38 seeks to allow law- abiding citizens the ability to exercise their Second Amendment right when they cross State lines.

The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense. Further, the Court concluded that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation, and that central to this right is the ``inherent right of self-defense.''

Additionally, in McDonnell v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court ruled that the right of an individual to ``keep and bear arms,'' as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment against the States.

An individual's Second Amendment right is no different than the First Amendment's protections on speech and free exercise of religious expression and the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure or the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

Can you imagine my colleagues' outcries if any of the aforementioned rights stopped at their State's borders? Believe me, I can. They would be loud and boisterous about it, and justifiably so. Despite that fact, here they are trying to derail a bill that affords the Second Amendment the same respect.

Now, this motion to recommit attempts to extend the law, the Federal law, which already bars people from having firearms if they have been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor domestic violence crimes, by saying any violent crime be covered. And they define violent crime by saying it means ``any offense that involves injury or the threat of injury to the person of another.''

Well, in my State of Virginia and in most other States, it is up to the police officer in a traffic accident, if you rear-end somebody and you injure them, whether or not you are simply charged with a traffic offense or you are charged with a criminal offense. That should not be the basis of denying somebody their Second Amendment rights under the United States Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to recommit and support the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.