Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 49) condemning the violence and domestic terrorist attack that took place during events between August 11 and August 12, 2017, in Charlottesville, Virginia, recognizing the

first responders who lost their lives while monitoring the events, offering deepest condolences to the families and friends of those individuals who were killed and deepest sympathies and support to those individuals who were injured by the violence, expressing support for the Charlottesville community, rejecting White nationalists, White supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups, and urging the President and the President's Cabinet to use all available resources to address the threats posed by those groups, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I along with my colleague, Representative Morgan Griffin rise to honor the life of Judge John L. Apostolou, a native of Salem, Virginia Born on August, 16, 1930, Judge Apostolou passed away on Monday, August 21, 2017, at the age of 87.

Judge Apostolou was a widely respected member of the local legal community and well-known in the Roanoke Valley as a ``law-and-order judge.'' He was loved by the bar because he was a lawyer's judge, one who would help a young lawyer learn the craft of practicing in the courtroom, and was always fair to everyone who came before him, whether they were represented by a lawyer or not.

Following his graduation from the College of William and Mary and the Marshall-Wythe School of Law, he worked in a private law practice and later worked as an assistant commonwealth's attorney in Roanoke. He also served as acting judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court on two occasions during the 1960s. In 1985, he began full-time service as a General District Court judge in

the 23rd Judicial District, which includes Roanoke, Roanoke County, and Salem. He served on the bench for more than a decade before retiring in 1996.

Like many that he met over the years, we will remember Judge Apostolou as a fine man and a very fair judge. We thank him for his service to our country in the United States Army and to the Roanoke community in the courtroom. We offer our condolences to his wife of 43 years, Brenda, as well as their children, Cynthia, Laura, and Jay, and four grandchildren. Our prayers are with the Apostolou family as they mourn this loss. May God give them comfort and peace.

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

Mr. Chairman, today I rise to urge support for my amendment, which would reaffirm and preserve the rights of the States to write their own water quality plans.

My amendment simply prohibits the EPA from using its Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load and the so-called watershed implementation plans to hijack States water quality strategies.

Over the last several years, the EPA has implemented a total maximum daily load blueprint for six States in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, which strictly limits the amount of nutrients that can enter the Chesapeake Bay. Through its implementation, the EPA has basically given every State in the watershed an ultimatum: either the State does exactly what the EPA says, or it faces the threat of an EPA takeover of its water quality programs.

Congress intended that the implementation of the Clean Water Act be a collaborative approach through which the States and the Federal Government work together. This process was not meant to be subject to the whims of politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. Therefore, my amendment instructs the EPA to respect the important role States play in implementing the Clean Water Act.

I want to make it perfectly clear that my amendment would not stop the EPA from working with the States to restore the Chesapeake Bay, nor would it undermine the cleanup efforts already underway. My language only removes the ability of the EPA to take over a State's plan, or to take retaliatory actions against a State if it does not meet the EPA mandated goals. Again, it ensures states' rights remain intact and not usurped by the EPA.

It is important to point out that the correlation between the EPA's outrageous Waters of the United States rule and the bay TMDL. At the heart of both issues is the EPA's desire to control conservation and water quality improvement efforts throughout the country, and to punish all of those who dare to oppose them.

Mr. Chairman, the bay is a national treasure, and I want to see it restored. But we know that in order to achieve this goal, the States and the EPA must work together. The EPA cannot be allowed to railroad the States and micromanage the process.

With this amendment, we are simply telling the EPA to respect the important role States play in implementing the Clean Water Act and preventing another Federal power grab.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Chair, I understand that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has the right to close.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Chairman Shuster along with Mr. Thompson, for being cosponsors of this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.

It is simply not true that this amendment would interfere with the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay, and I am going to repeat what I said earlier. My amendment does not remove the TMDL or the watershed implementation plans. It only removes the retaliatory actions threatened by the EPA.

The current plans and processes the States are using to clean up the bay are working. That is absolutely right. They are working, and they started long before this imposition by the EPA that occurred at the beginning of the Obama administration.

States have made great strides in cleaning up the bay, so why continue to threaten them with an EPA takeover of their water quality plans.

The other argument that is made is the Federal Government needs to be involved in this cleanup process. Well, I believe the Federal Government should be a partner in this effort. As the chairman has noted, they can play an important function. However, the current process has the EPA dictating to States, local communities, and businesses instead of a cooperative approach. That is not playing a part; that is controlling the process.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the provision beginning with the colon on page 327, line 22, and continuing through the word ``crime'' on page 328, line 2, of the Rules Committee print because it violates clause 2 of House rule XXI. Under clause 2(b) of rule XXI, a provision that changes existing law may not be reported in a general appropriations bill.

Section 510 of Division C provides that 5 percent of the amounts available for obligation from the Department of Justice's Crime Victims Fund be made available for grants to Indian tribal governments in fiscal year 2018. This provision violates rule XXI because it changes existing law. The Victims of Crime Act already provides a statutory distribution formula of the Crime Victims Fund for fiscal year 2018. Section 510 would change the formula. This statutory formula is squarely in the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee.

As this amendment would change current law by altering a statutory formula, it is a violation of clause 2(b) of rule XXI.

Therefore, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, For 125 years, the city of Buena Vista, Virginia, has stood at the foot of the Blue Ridge Mountains by the Maury River. Though Buena Vista has seen many changes during this time, I have always known this community to be home to hardworking people who are eager to welcome a neighbor and lend a helping hand.

The city's origins can be traced back to the opening of a simple tannery by Benjamin Moomaw. In the early days, the community was known by several names, including Green Forest--a fitting name given the beautiful surrounding landscape. On February 15, 1892, Buena Vista was granted its city charter.

Buena Vista is well-known for a number of outdoor recreation opportunities, like the 315-acre Glen Maury Park. Glen Maury Park hosts numerous music events each year, including the Maury River Fiddlers' Convention and the annual Beach Music Festival. Buena Vista is also an Appalachian Trail community and a welcome respite for many through hikers. Whether giving a lift to an AT hiker or welcoming fiddlers to the competition stage, Buena Vista residents take pride in their city. Community is built and evidenced by the spirit of volunteerism which reigns across many projects and programs that benefit both residents and visitors, like arts promotions, beautification efforts, and local endeavors to protect historic structures.

Education has long been a hallmark of life in Buena Vista. The campus of Southern Virginia University, a private, 4-year liberal arts college, is located in the city. I would be remiss if I didn't mention that Buena Vista is also home to Parry McCluer High School, the Fighting Blues! Generations of former students come together during each sports season to support their team with resounding, ``Go, Blue'' cheers. Academic success is celebrated as well, not only by parents but by the community, witnessed by the multitude of academic scholarships presented to PMHS graduates each year.

The annual Labor Day Parade is a true Buena Vista tradition. Since the initial Labor Day Parade held in the early 1970s, folks from across the Commonwealth have gathered to watch as the parade marched down Magnolia Avenue from downtown Buena Vista to Glen Maury Park. It's traditionally known as the kickoff to the political season leading up to the November elections, and I always look forward to the parade and the many friends I see along the way.

The city of Buena Vista is a special place to me. After marrying my wife of more than 40 years, Maryellen, we both worked in the Buena Vista community. Maryellen was a secretary at First National Exchange Bank, and I painted school buses at the Bluebird Factory. We will never forget our experiences there.

The city has also endured several horrific flooding events over the years. Working with its partners, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Buena Vista implemented the James R. Olin Flood Control Project, and it was my pleasure to lend a hand in that effort.

Through it all, the city of Buena Vista has remained steadfast for 125 years. I am proud to represent Buena Vista. I congratulate the city and its people on this milestone, and I wish them great prosperity for the future.

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have worked long and hard to preserve the availability of fair, affordable arbitration to consumers. Hearings before the Judiciary Committee have demonstrated repeatedly that arbitration allows consumers to resolve disputes quickly, fairly and at lower costs than litigation. It also helps consumers to preserve relationships with companies with whom they contract, by avoiding the acrimony of litigation.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Arbitration Rule threatens to undo all of that, not to benefit consumers, but to benefit one special interest--the plaintiffs class-action trial bar.

By prohibiting consumers and companies from contracting to arbitrate individual matters, rather than litigate disputes through class actions, it ensures a steady stream of class-action litigation--and handsome class-action attorneys' fees--for the trial bar. But for consumers, it burdens their freedom of contract, subjects them to long, drawn-out class-action litigation, and sets up scenarios in which large portions of any recoveries they obtain will go, not to them, but to class-action lawyers with whom they are forced to deal.

For companies, meanwhile, the Rule threatens to force them into choosing whether to continue to fund their arbitration programs or, instead, to shutter those programs to preserve funds for high-dollar class-action defense.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution and against the CFPB's special-interest, anti-consumer rule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee for yielding and for his longtime work on this authorization.

Authorizing all of the Cabinet Departments is important, but it is crucial that Congress reauthorize the Department of Homeland Security. The American people must have faith that DHS will serve to protect this Nation, and this authorization demonstrates Congress' commitment to the critical missions being performed daily by this diverse Department.

This bill is the product of collaboration between several committees, and the Judiciary Committee greatly contributed to this bill as it authorizes three component agencies within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee: the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the United States Secret Service.

Make no mistake: we authorize the Department and its agencies to carry out each and every duty and utilize every tool necessary to keep America safe. While the bill does contain much of the authorizing language as reported out of the Judiciary Committee, it does not reflect all of our important work on the ICE and USCIS authorizations. It is critical that these two DHS components have all the tools necessary to carry out their functions. H.R. 2825 should have explicitly included such tools as the clear congressional intent to ensure that these agencies have them at their disposal in order to enforce the laws.

I do support this bill because it is an important step in ensuring that ICE and USCIS can continue to perform at a very high level. This Congress must soon finish the job, however, and ensure that these agencies have the resources and legislative support that they need to enforce our immigration laws in the interior of the United States.

The House must pass the Judiciary Committee's enforcement bills, including the Davis-Oliver Act, the Protection of Children Act, the Refugee Program Integrity Restoration Act, and the Legal Workforce Act, among others. I intend to see these bills on the House floor in the near future, and I look forward to fulfilling our promise so that DHS can truly fulfill its mission.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 92) granting the consent and approval of Congress for the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the District of Columbia to amend the Washington Area Transit Regulation Compact.

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. 92, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 92, introduced by my Virginia colleague, Representative Comstock, concerns the Washington-area transit system. The resolution makes needed administrative amendments to the longstanding Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact.

These amendments are required under section 3026 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation, or FAST, Act. That section transferred from the Administrator of General Services to the Secretary of Transportation sole authority to appoint Federal directors to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority board of directors. It further required Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia to adopt any necessary conforming amendments to the Washington Area Transit Regulation Compact.

The jurisdictions adopted the needed amendments as required. H.J. Res. 92 accordingly grants Congress' approval to the amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I thank Members on both sides of the aisle, including Congresswoman Comstock, for their good work on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Comstock), who is the chief sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this fine legislation.

I thank everybody for their good work, 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 joint resolution (H.J. Res. 76) granting the consent and approval of Congress for the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the District of Columbia to a enter into a compact relating to the establishment of the Washington Metrorail Safety Commission, 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 materials on H.J. Res. 76, currently under consideration.

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

H.J. Res. 76 grants Congress' approval to the Metrorail Safety Commission Interstate Compact, an interstate compact entered into recently by the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the District of Columbia.

The safety record of the D.C.-area Metrorail system and other public transit systems in our country has been a matter of increasing concern for some time. To better address public transit safety needs, including metrorails, Congress included in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, or MAP Act or MAP-21, and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation, or FAST Act, provisions strengthening the Federal Transit Administration's safety oversight authority and related safety requirements for public transit systems.

Pursuant to these acts and through the Metrorail Safety Commission Interstate Compact, Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia have committed to establish a new Washington Metrorail Safety Commission to act as the State safety oversight authority for the Metrorail system. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has informed the Judiciary Committee that the new compact's provisions satisfy the requirements of the relevant Federal statutes.

The jurisdictions completed, in March of this year, their adoption by legislation of their respective compact instruments. In the meanwhile, however, due to delays in the adoption of the instruments, the FTA invoked on February 9, 2017, authority to suspend the distribution of transit funds to the jurisdictions until the new safety commission is established.

By passage of H.J. Res. 76, we can hasten the day by which Metrorail safety will be improved and funds obligated for other impacted transit systems in the compact jurisdictions can be made available for release.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Comstock).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to say that this has been a good bipartisan collaborative effort. I thank Minority Whip Hoyer, Congresswoman Comstock, and the other Members from the region for their work to assure that safety measures do move forward with regard to the Metro here in the Washington, D.C., area. And this legislation is critical to accomplish that, so I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, 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. 2480) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to include an additional permissible use of amounts provided as grants under the Byrne JAG program, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 2480, currently under consideration.

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

Today, Mr. Speaker, we continue our battle against the scourge of human trafficking with H.R. 2480, the Empowering Law Enforcement to Fight Sex Trafficking Demand Act. This bill, introduced by our colleague, Congresswoman Hartzler of Missouri, adds antihuman trafficking efforts as an allowable use for funds under the Byrne JAG program, the Justice Department's flagship grant program for State and local governments and law enforcement. It specifies that the JAG funds may be used for demand reduction operations.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the fight against human trafficking starts at the local level. It infects every community, and our local officials and law enforcement are on the front lines in this battle. They are in the best position to assess how to address this issue in their communities and how to use these taxpayer dollars.

As part of any comprehensive approach in combating trafficking, local government and law enforcement must address what many call the demand issue; that is, going after those who are buying young victims off the street and, very often, off the internet. This is simple economics applied to a horrific crime.

Human trafficking is driven by the demand for commercial sex, and this is costing victims their sense of worth and their dignity. By deterring demand, traffickers will have fewer buyers and may abandon their illegal and horrifyingly reprehensible activity.

These demand reduction operations and programs are most often carried out at the local level, and it is important to ensure local governments have the tools they need to prevent this destructive crime by deterring people from buying victims.

We cannot tolerate sex trafficking and must be able to act swiftly to combat this horrific crime. H.R. 2480 ensures our communities will be able to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman Hartzler for introducing this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support her bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), the chief sponsor of this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to thank Members on both sides of the aisle for their hard work on this, especially the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler) for taking the lead on this, also the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), as well as the ranking member of the full Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers; and of the subcommittee, Ms. Jackson Lee; and the subcommittee chair, Mr. Sensenbrenner.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this very important legislation that will help direct important resources to State and local governments to reduce demand for sex trafficking, and help to maybe protect and save a few young people and other people from this horrible crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding to me and for his work on this bill, as well as Chairman Bishop's work on this legislation and those on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge passage of H.R. 954. This bill simply removes 20-year-old deed use restrictions on 1 acre of land in Rockingham County, Virginia.

For over 25 years, a little over 3 acres of land and its associated buildings previously held by the Federal Government have been maintained by Rockingham County in the Plains Area Daycare Center in the Sixth District of Virginia.

In 1989, the Federal Government deeded these 3 acres of land, with restriction, to Rockingham County. However, even prior to this official declaration, Rockingham County had already been faithfully maintaining the property no longer utilized by the Federal Government.

The government transferred this land to Rockingham County in 1989 under the condition that this property was to be used for public purposes. The county then decided that the nonprofit Plains Area Daycare Center in Broadway, Virginia, which provides childcare on a sliding scale to many families who otherwise could not afford such a service, would benefit from the use of the old garage located on the property.

Therefore, in 1990, Congress enacted Public Law 101-479, which allowed the deed to be changed from public use to the particular use of the childcare center. Donations by the community, totaling $75,000, turned the building into a nursery, daycare, and afterschool care facility.

Additionally, the establishment of the daycare center provided for the creation of a playground that the center supports and opens for public use. To

be clear, the center and the playground are the sole reason this previously abandoned government land is being used by the community.

I have visited the Plains Area Daycare Center on many occasions, and I have seen the immeasurable investment this center is making in the community by providing high-quality childcare. Since opening in 1991, the center has always been at capacity and is the only facility of its kind in the community.

However, after 2 decades of consistent use, the facility is in desperate need of repairs. Unfortunately, because of the narrow way Public Law 101-479 was drafted and because of the terms of the deed, the daycare center has been unable to obtain a loan to complete much- needed renovations. To solve this problem, my legislation would remove the deed's use restrictions from the 1 acre of property on which the building resides.

While I would like to have seen the entire 3 acres released, this legislation is the result of a compromise that has been endorsed by the National Park Service and Rockingham County. By passing this legislation and allowing Rockingham County and, in turn, the Plains Area Daycare Center more authority over the land, we will ensure that more children and more of the community will be served.

Mr. Speaker, while my legislation today is simply a formality, it is of great importance to those being served by this daycare center in the community. For 25 years, the land has been deeded to Rockingham County, but with overbearing restrictions. Since it is clear the Federal Government no longer has a vested interest in the land, it is time to lift those restrictions to allow the Plains Area Daycare Center to reach it full potential.

Twenty years ago, Congress made its intention clear that a daycare facility was to have use of the property, and I am pleased to lead the charge in fixing the law.

Again, I thank Chairman Bishop and his committee for bringing this bill before the House. I also thank my legislative assistant, Angela Inglett, for her hard work on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 954 to simply remove the deed restrictions on 1 acre of land so that the necessary upgrades may be made to the childcare center and so that this community investment may continue.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 414, I call up the bill (H.R. 3003) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to modify provisions relating to assistance by States, and political subdivision of States, in the enforcement of Federal immigration laws, and for other purposes, 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. 3003.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act. This simple, straightforward bill combats dangerous sanctuary policies that permit criminals to go free. We are all too familiar with how sanctuary policies have devastated families across the United States, and today we are taking action to prevent these senseless tragedies and save American lives.

For years, the lack of immigration enforcement and spread of sanctuary policies have cost too many lives. The Obama administration encouraged or, at the very least, turned a blind eye to jurisdictions nationwide that implemented sanctuary policies designed to prevent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from being able to effectively enforce Federal law. Foolhardy jurisdictions continue to pass legislation and implement policies aimed at stymieing and maligning Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Earlier this year, a Baltimore City Council member introduced a resolution calling on ICE to arrest only those posing a ``serious risk.'' In discussing this initiative, the council member likened ICE officers to Nazis several times. Such rhetoric is reprehensible, creating a moral equivalent between genocide and a nation exercising a fundamental right and obligation of sovereignty.

In a deeply troubling move on the other coast, San Francisco announced that it would no longer participate in the Joint Terrorism Task Force because of concerns that the task force's duties may coincide with immigration enforcement.

Sanctuary policies often focus on flouting ICE detainers, notices issued by ICE to allow it to take custody of aliens in law enforcement custody in order to initiate removal proceedings.

These irresponsible policies have led to a sharp drop in ICE's intake of aliens from criminal detention facilities, which forces ICE agents to engage in the far more time-consuming and dangerous task of picking them up on the streets. This, among other factors, led to a drop in the number of criminal aliens removed from the interior of the United States from almost 87,000 in fiscal year 2014 to approximately 63,500 the following 2 fiscal years.

We must discourage, not encourage, sanctuary policies and practices. H.R. 3003 addresses sanctuary policies and also takes great strides in clarifying Federal immigration detainer policy.

Since the 1990s, Federal law has barred jurisdictions from restricting communication with Federal immigration officials regarding immigration status; however, this provision has never been enforced. H.R. 3003 amends current law and expands this prohibition against impeding Federal law enforcement. Instead of merely focussing on communication, the bill ensures that no jurisdiction may restrict assistance or compliance with immigration enforcement.

To be clear, this bill imposes no affirmative duty to act on the part of any jurisdiction. Should a jurisdiction not comply with this provision, the jurisdiction will not be eligible for certain grant programs administered by the Department of Justice and Homeland Security. Eligibility for many of these grant programs is already predicated on compliance with this provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

This section is also in line with a recent memo by Attorney General Sessions outlining compliance with this provision as the single factor that the Justice Department will use in identifying sanctuary jurisdictions.

Regarding detainer policy, Congress has long heard that jurisdictions will not comply with ICE requests to hold individuals due to a lack of probable cause inherent in the detainer. I am pleased that H.R. 3003 provides the probable cause standards necessary to ensure that ICE only places detainers on aliens for whom they have probable cause and are deportable.

In addition, the bill mandates that ICE must take custody of the subject of a detainer within 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays. Jurisdictions who comply in good faith with detainer requests will be immune from liability associated with that detainer, and if such an action does arise, the U.S. Government will substitute itself in as the defendant. This ensures that jurisdictions do not go bankrupt defending against never-ending litigation. And in those jurisdictions that refuse to honor a detainer resulting in an alien committing a crime, the victim or victim's family will be provided with the opportunity to bring a lawsuit against that jurisdiction.

The third section of H.R. 3003 is named for Sarah Root and Grant Ronnebeck, two young people whose lives were suddenly taken by criminal aliens who remain at large today. This section was originally introduced as separate bills by Judiciary Committee

members Steve King and Andy Biggs, who worked tirelessly to bring these tragic cases to the attention of the committee and the Congress.

This section provides that aliens who are arrested or charged with serious crimes that result in death or serious bodily injury of another must be held without bond during the pendency of their removal proceedings.

In addition, aliens convicted of even one drunk driving offense will also be ineligible for bond during their removal proceedings. The latter would have prevented the August 2010 death of Sister Denise Mosier, a Catholic nun in Virginia, at the hands of a drunk driving illegal alien who was released from ICE custody on bond. These classes of individuals present a clear and present danger to society and should not be permitted to roam our communities during the pendency of their removal hearings.

The commonsense provisions of H.R. 3003 will provide better immigration enforcement and the peace of mind that no criminal will be provided sanctuary from our immigration laws.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to the gentlewoman from northern California that what is crazy is what the city of San Francisco is doing with their taxpayer dollars, since it was reported just yesterday that San Francisco taxpayers could soon pay $190,000 in a lawsuit settlement with an illegal immigrant who claimed he was reported to Federal immigration authorities in violation of the city of San Francisco's sanctuary city ordinance.

The city attorney's office confirmed this, and the settlement is expected to be confirmed by San Francisco's supervisors in future hearings.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Now, people who are murdered, people who are injured by people who are unlawfully present in the United States should have their day in court with the city of San Francisco or anyone else just as well as they are apparently willing to pay money to people who are illegally in the country because they were properly turned over to Federal authorities to be deported from this country.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), the chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Young).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond and point out that many, many of the victims of these crimes are Hispanic, African American, and others, and they were seated around the Cabinet table at the White House yesterday pleading for this legislation because they had lost their loved ones. They would much rather have been able to rewind the tape and be with those loved ones who were killed by people who were illegally present in the United States. The victims would never have suffered if our laws had simply been enforced.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn).

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

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

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

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

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

First, let me be clear: the only law enforcement agencies that risk losing any Federal grants because of this legislation are those agencies that, without any outside compulsion, deliberately choose to violate Federal law by outright prohibiting their law enforcement officers from voluntarily communicating with ICE and cooperating with it in the enforcement of Federal law.

Second, let me also be clear that this bill does not require State and local law enforcement agencies to comply with ICE detainers, and it does not seek to cut off any Federal grants to jurisdictions that choose not to comply.

Finally, it is a long-settled principle of constitutional law. And let me remind you that all of these law enforcement officers vowed to defend the Constitution, and the Constitution grants supremacy to Federal immigration law.

When there is a conflict with Federal immigration law, State laws that are in conflict are invalid, preempted by Federal law under the 10th Amendment. Under the 10th Amendment, State and local law enforcement agencies have no obligation to comply with unconstitutional provisions of State or local law that asks them to violate title 8, United States Code, section 1373.

Then, again, getting back to the amazing news that we have, the city of San Francisco has just agreed to pay $190,000 to an illegal alien because the San Francisco sheriff complied with an ICE detainer and turned the alien over to ICE, apparently in violation of San Francisco policy. That individual, under Federal law, because he was the victim of a crime, will be eligible to apply for a U visa.

Respect for the rule of law is the way to keep communities safe. Respect for the rule of law is the way to make sure that people like Kate Steinle are not murdered in the city of San Francisco, as we have heard of other murders all during the debate today, by people who are unlawfully present in the United States. Therefore, they are all preventable crimes.

Law enforcement in this country needs to cooperate. Most law enforcement officers want that to be done. Let's support them, let's support this legislation, and make sure that the rule of law is upheld.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is quite correct: everyone deserves to feel safe.

Kate Steinle deserved to feel safe when she was walking down the pier with her father in San Francisco, when she was killed.

Not enacting this legislation endangers public safety, not the opposite, as those on the other side have argued.

How would you trust local government officials, who have instructed their law enforcement officers to not cooperate with Federal law enforcement officers to take dangerous criminals off of our streets, when this motion to recommit would say: ``Oh, they will have to certify that such compliance would endanger public safety and then the law wouldn't apply?''

It is circular reasoning.

The nonenforcement of immigration laws has led to the bolstering of sanctuary jurisdiction policies in communities throughout the United States. These policies hamper the enforcement of Federal law and do nothing to truly promote trust between law enforcement and U.S. citizens.

This bill provides a commonsense approach to fixing the damage caused by sanctuary policies without mandating any affirmative duty. In order to be in compliance with section 1373 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended in this bill, States and localities have no affirmative duties to act. They have no obligations to cooperate or communicate, or even engage with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at any level.

Instead, they simply may not affirmatively restrict a government entity, including law enforcement, from cooperating or communicating with ICE.

So I am shocked that so many on the other side of the aisle view compliance with this provision as a condition for eligibility for certain grant programs as outlandish. This is not a novel concept. And compliance with section 1373 is already a condition of eligibility for these grant programs.

As for detainers, H.R. 3003 creates the probable cause standard that so many have argued was lacking for so long. Once enacted, States and localities can look to Federal law to receive clarification on what probable cause standard is employed before a detainer request is placed.

To further aid jurisdictions, the threat of expensive and time- consuming frivolous litigation is abated by providing immunity for jurisdictions that exercise good faith in honoring a detainer.

Finally, this bill ensures that dangerous criminal aliens convicted of drunk driving or not yet convicted of very serious crimes are prevented from freely walking the streets of our communities during their removal hearings. This bill is a strong first step in ensuring that our immigration laws are enforced.

I urge my colleagues to vote down this motion to recommit, to vote for the base bill, and to send a message that sanctuary policies will not be tolerated so that the rule of law will prevail.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 415, I call up the bill (H.R. 3004) to amend section 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act relating to reentry of removed aliens, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. 3004.

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

Mr. Speaker, for too long, illegal reentry of criminal aliens has been viewed as a minor felony with only a fraction of those repeat offenders ever seeing the inside of a Federal courtroom. Section 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides Federal prosecutors with the tools necessary to truly deter criminal aliens from reentering the United States.

Unfortunately, the section simply does not go far enough to act as a deterrent. Criminal aliens view the risk as worth the reward, as most charged under this section of law are given minuscule sentences that belie the severity of the crime.

Aliens who reenter the United States after being removed, demonstrate a flagrant disregard for our immigration laws and pose a tremendous threat to public safety and national security in every community nationwide.

This Congress has heard from countless victims and family members of victims whose lives were forever changed or completely destroyed by criminal aliens preying on our citizens.

This bill is named in memory and in honor of Kate Steinle. On July 1, 2015, Ms. Steinle was enjoying an evening at a popular attraction in San Francisco with her father. As three shots were fired, Ms. Steinle collapsed screaming. Her father, Jim, performed CPR until paramedics arrived, but she ultimately succumbed to the severe damage caused by the bullet and she died hours later.

Her murderer was arrested an hour later and identified as a middle- aged criminal alien who had been removed from the United States and had returned at least five times. The gun used had been stolen from a Federal officer with the Bureau of Land Management.

Mr. Speaker, these horrific events must be better deterred and prevented. No legislation can prevent every tragic situation, but this Congress has a duty to take every action possible to mitigate this harm and danger.

It is in this vein that I am proud to bring Kate's Law to the House floor today. This bill seeks to amend and greatly improve section 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act by enhancing the maximum sentences for criminal aliens who seek to reenter the United States.

While an alien reentering this country is subject to a sentence of up to 2 years, current law only subjects certain criminals to enhance penalties. Specifically, only criminal aliens previously convicted of an aggravated felony, as defined in our immigration laws, controlled substance violations, crimes against other persons, or certain felonies would trigger an enhanced sentence of either 10 or 20 years.

Kate's Law closes the loophole into which so many criminal aliens fall. The bill provides that a criminal alien, previously convicted of any three misdemeanors or any felony, would, upon conviction for illegal reentry, be subject to a maximum sentence of 10 years.

Aliens previously convicted of a crime for which they were sentenced to at least 30 months, would, upon conviction for illegal reentry, be subject to a maximum sentence of 15 years.

Aliens previously convicted of a crime for which they were sentenced to at least 60 months, would, upon conviction for illegal reentry, be subject to a maximum sentence of 20 years.

Aliens previously convicted for murder, rape, kidnapping, a peonage offense, or any three felonies, would, under conviction for illegal reentry, be subject to a maximum sentence of 25 years.

These are significant enhancements to our immigration laws and are long overdue. I would be remiss, however, if I failed to mention a caveat added to the bill. If enacted, Kate's Law adds affirmative defenses for aliens charged under this section. If an alien can prove that they had the express consent of the Secretary of Homeland Security to reapply for admission, or that an alien previously denied admission and removed was not required to obtain such consent, then the alien may present that as an affirmative defense to the illegal reentry crime.

This safeguard will ensure that only aliens who illegally reenter the United States may be convicted and sentenced to enhanced penalties under this section.

This is missing from the current statute, and I am sure my colleagues on both side of the aisle would agree that due process protections such as these add to the efficacy of such a measure.

Nothing that this Congress can pass will ever bring Kate Steinle back, nor take away the pain suffered by her family, and countless other victims of crimes committed by criminal aliens. Kate's Law, however, will offer a deterrent against future criminal aliens who seek to illegally reenter the United States. Knowing they may face up to 2 years in Federal prison is one thing, but the possibility of a sentence of 10, 15, 20, or 25 years will have the desired effect.

I agree with many of my colleagues on both side of the aisle that we must take many other steps to address our immigration system. This Congress must pass strong measures to ensure that immigration enforcement in the interior of the United States remains a priority. Kate's Law is an essential component of that larger effort to bring about true enforcement of our immigration laws, and protect this Nation from criminal aliens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from

Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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 myself 30 seconds to quote from a letter from the Sergeants Benevolent Association that we received 2 days ago in support of Kate's Law, and I want to read a sentence from it.

``In recent years, the need to protect our citizens from those aliens who enter the United States illegally, commit crimes here, are deported, and who illegally return to the U.S. and commit additional crimes has become a top concern of the law enforcement community.''

This is from the Sergeants Benevolent Association, Police Department, City of New York. I include it in the Record.

Sergeants Benevolent Association, Police Department, City

of New York,

New York, NY, June 27, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder).

Mr. Speaker, I have only one speaker remaining, and I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are a nation of immigrants. There is not a person who has participated in this debate today who cannot go back a few years, a few generations or several generations and find someone in their family who came here to the United States, but we are also a nation of laws. The loss of respect for the rule of law is absolutely a serious problem in this country, and the step-by-step approach to restoring respect for the rule of law and reforming our immigration laws starts with these bills, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act and Kate's Law.

We are all about today, in this legislation, enhancing public safety, securing our borders, and restoring the rule of law.

We give discretion to Federal judges--discretion to Federal judges, I would add--to make sure that people who have entered this country previously illegally and who reenter the country can be given enhanced sentences. It is not mandatory by any means, and, in fact, in many instances, it would be better to send the person outside the country and not have the taxpayers bear the expense.

But in the case of the individual who murdered Kate Steinle and had reentered the country five times and had committed other crimes while in the United States, having that additional time that the judge could impose on that individual who was just being released for having been convicted of illegally entering the country, Bureau of Prisons should have turned him over to ICE to send him out again. But if the ICE agents wanted to, when he entered illegally the previous time, recommend that he be given more time than the sentence he just served, he would have still been in prison when Kate Steinle walked down that pier with her father and was murdered by him.

So when those on the other side say this was not preventable by this law, they are entirely wrong. This law would have prevented that if a judge had chosen to impose that additional time that we are today providing in these cases.

We also clear up some uncertainty regarding this current law, and I think it is entirely appropriate to do so. It will deal with some of the situations that those on the other side have discussed, but most importantly, it will discourage people from entering the United States illegally, particularly when they have already entered illegally earlier and have been convicted of a crime for doing so.

So, to me, this is absolutely the beginning point of restoring to law enforcement at every level in our country the necessary tools to enforce our immigration laws, to work together to keep American citizens safe, like Kate Steinle and many, many others.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet with about a dozen representatives of families who lost loved ones to the criminal acts of people who were not lawfully present in the United States. And so it is also entirely true to say that, had those individuals not been present in the United States, those crimes would not have been committed, those, in most instances, murders, in all instances, killings, would not have taken place.

Therefore, when you enforce our immigration laws, unlike laws applying to American citizens who also commit crimes, in the case of people who are not lawfully present in the United States, these crimes are entirely preventable if we enforce our immigration laws. Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to support Kate's Law and the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act to make sure that we go down this road of restoring the trust of the American people in their system of government, in their protection by their government, and in their own respect for the rule of law and know that their government is upholding that with regard to other individuals as well.

This is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit not only changes the bill before us, but it also changes current law. It has long been Federal law that an alien who has been deported and who returns to the U.S. is subject to possible criminal prosecution.

Under this bill, an alien who has received consent from the Department of Homeland Security to return or is not required to seek consent from DHS has an affirmative defense.

Obviously, such an alien will never be prosecuted. Never has, never will. In fact, because this is current law--and the gentlewoman was the chairman of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee for 4 years and never offered such an amendment to current law--I see no reason to address it in this legislation.

I will say that we have all been committed in a very bipartisan fashion to combating sex trafficking. We passed several bills through this House, some with the gentlewoman's support, some without, that do indeed combat sex trafficking.

But back to the issue before us today. Criminal aliens are reentering the United States after being removed all the time. Without stronger enforcement measures in place, this government cannot provide an appropriate deterrence for these reentries.

Kate's Law takes a tough approach to dealing with criminal aliens who reenter the United States. Instead of the majority being subjected to no more than a 2-year maximum sentence, this bill takes an individual's criminal history into consideration and provides enhanced penalties accordingly. While the 2-year sentence may not deter illegal reentry, a potential 25-year sentence certainly would.

Nothing can bring Kate Steinle back and nothing can absolutely prevent such crimes from occurring in the future. This legislation is meant to honor her memory and clearly demonstrate that this Congress will act.

This legislation is another step in bringing stronger enforcement measures to improve our immigration enforcement capabilities. Longer sentences for those criminal aliens who reenter the United States illegally is an important aspect of that mechanism.

I urge my colleagues to vote down this motion to recommit, vote for the underlying bill, and to truly deter criminal aliens from reentering the United States.

Mr. Speaker, 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. 1215.

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

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is modeled on California's highly successful litigation reforms that have lowered healthcare costs and made healthcare much more accessible to the people of that State.

Because the evidence of the effects of those reforms on lowering healthcare costs is so overwhelming, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that, if the same reforms were applied at the Federal level, they would save over $50 billion over a 10-year period.

Because the evidence that those reforms increase access to healthcare is so overwhelming, they are supported by a huge variety of public safety and labor unions, community clinics and health centers, and organizations dedicated to disease prevention, all of which have seen the beneficial effects of these reforms in California.

So popular are these reforms among the citizens of California that a ballot initiative to raise the damages cap, backed and funded by trial lawyers, was defeated by an over 2-to-1 margin in 2014.

This bill's commonsense reforms include a $250,000 cap on inherently unquantifiable noneconomic damages and limits on the contingency fees lawyers can charge. They allow courts to require periodic payments for future damages instead of lump sum awards so bankruptcies in which plaintiffs would receive only pennies on the dollar can be prevented. They include provisions creating a ``fair share'' rule by which damages are allocated fairly in direct proportion to fault.

This bill does all this without in any way limiting compensation for 100 percent of plaintiffs' economic losses, which include anything to which a receipt can be attached, including all medical costs, lost wages, future lost wages, rehabilitation costs, and any other economic out-of-pocket loss suffered as the result of a healthcare injury. Far from limiting deserved recoveries in California, these reforms have led to medical damage awards in deserving cases in the $80 million and $90 million range.

Unlike past iterations, this bill only applies to claims concerning the provision of goods or services for which coverage is provided in whole or in part via a Federal program, subsidy, or tax benefit, giving it a clear Federal nexus. Wherever Federal policy directly affects the distribution of healthcare, there is a clear Federal interest in reducing the costs of such Federal policies.

The legislation before us today also protects any State law that otherwise caps damages--whether at a higher level or lower than the caps in the bill--or provides greater protections that lower healthcare costs.

When President Ronald Reagan established a special task force to study the need for Federal tort reform, that task force concluded as follows: ``In sum, tort law appears to be a major cause of the insurance availability and affordability crisis which the Federal Government can and should address in a variety of sensible and appropriate ways.''

Indeed, the Reagan task force specifically recommended ``eliminate joint and several liability,'' ``provide for periodic payments of future economic damages,'' ``schedule''--that is, limit--``contingency fees'' of attorneys, and ``limit noneconomic damages to a fair and reasonable amount.'' All of these recommended reforms are part of the bill before us today.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that would enact much-needed commonsense and cost-saving litigation reforms that would increase healthcare accessibility for all.

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, March 21, 2017.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Goodlatte: I write in regard to H.R. 1215,

Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017, which was referred in

addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I wanted to

notify you that the Committee will forgo action on the bill

so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for

consideration.

The Committee on Energy and Commerce takes this action with

our mutual understanding that by foregoing consideration of

H.R. 1215, the Committee does not waive any jurisdiction over

the subject matter contained in this or similar legislation

and will be appropriately consulted and involved as this or

similar legislation moves forward to address any remaining

issues within the Committee's jurisdiction. The Committee

also reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate

number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving

this or similar legislation and asks that you support any

such request.

I would appreciate your response confirming this

understanding with respect to H.R. 1215 and ask that a copy

of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in your

committee's report on the legislation or the Congressional

Record during its consideration on the House floor.

Sincerely,

Greg Walden,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1393) to limit the authority of States to tax certain income of employees for employment duties performed in other States.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1393, currently under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act provides a clear, uniform framework for when States may tax nonresident employees who travel to the taxing State to perform work. In particular, this bill prevents States from imposing income tax compliance burdens on nonresidents who work in a foreign State for 30 days or fewer in a year.

The State tax laws that determine when a nonresident must pay a foreign State's income tax and when employers must withhold this tax are numerous and varied. Some States tax income earned within their borders by nonresidents even if the employee only works in the State for just 1 day.

These complicated rules impact everyone who travels for work and many industries. As just one example, the Judiciary Committee heard testimony in 2015 that the patchwork of State laws resulted in a manufacturing company issuing 50 W-2s to a single employee for a single year. The company executive also noted, regarding the compliance burden, that ``many of our affected employees make less than $50,000 per year and have limited resources to seek professional advice.''

States generally allow a credit for income taxes paid to another State; however, it is not always dollar for dollar when local taxes are factored in. Credits also do not relieve workers of substantial paperwork burdens.

There are substantial burdens on employers as well. The committee heard

testimony in 2014 that businesses, including small businesses, that operate interstate are subject to significant regulatory burdens with regard to compliance with nonresident State income tax withholding laws. These burdens distract from productive activity and job creation.

Nevertheless, some object that the States will lose revenue if the bill is enacted. However, an analysis from Ernst & Young found that the bill's revenue impact is minimal. There is little motive for fraud and gaming because the amount of money at issue, taxes on less than 30 days' wages, is minimal.

Also, the income tax generally has to be paid; the question is merely to whom. Nor does this bill violate federalism principles. On the contrary, it is an exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority in precisely the situation for which it was intended.

The Supreme Court has explained that the Commerce Clause was informed by structural concerns about the effects of State regulation on the national economy. Under the Articles of Confederation, State taxes and duties hindered and suppressed interstate commerce. The Framers intended the Commerce Clause as a cure for these structural ills. This bill fits squarely within this authority by bringing uniformity to cases of de minimis presence by interstate workers in order to reduce compliance costs.

Last year's version of the bill passed the House on suspension by voice vote. This year's version is nearly identical, with two changes:

The professional entertainer exemption is narrowed from ``a person who performs services'' to ``a person of prominence who performs services'' in order to ensure that other entertainers retain the benefit of the bill's protections.

Second, the list of exclusions is expanded to cover film production employees if associated tax credits for instate productions are contingent on withholding film production wages earned in the State. This avoids disruption in such arrangements.

I commend the bill's lead sponsors, Representatives Bishop and Johnson, and thank all of the bill's cosponsors.

Madam Speaker, I urge the bill's passage, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman from New York.

I would like to point out that those revenues that might flow to New York because of their onerous system of imposing taxation for as little as one day's work in New York redounds to the benefit of the other 49 States, who would then receive that tax benefit, as it properly should.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bishop), the lead sponsor of the legislation.

Madam Speaker, I am the only speaker remaining and prepared to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

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

This bill enjoys broad bipartisan support. It has 57 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. This bill will minimize compliance burdens on both workers and employers so they can get back to being productive, creating and performing jobs. We have received letters of support from hundreds of entities across the employment spectrum.

But this bill is not just about business; it is about individuals. One businessman told the Judiciary Committee that the compliance burdens from the patchwork of State laws falls on his employees, who make less than $50,000 per year and have limited resources to seek professional advice.

It has been questioned whether there will be revenue lost to the States. Analysis shows the impact is minimal, affecting mainly the allocation of revenues, not the overall size of the tax revenue pot.

Similarly, concerns about tax evasion are unfounded. Unlike in the general income tax context, there is little motive here for fraud or gaming.

The amount of money at issue, taxes on less than 30 days' wages, is minimal. More importantly, except in nine States, the employee will have to pay the tax, in any event, to the employee's home State, so the only savings would be from minor rate differentials between the two jurisdictions.

This legislation is a great example of Congress working in a bipartisan way to relieve burdens on hardworking Americans.

I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bishop) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) for their bipartisan work on this legislation. I urge all of our colleagues to support the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.