Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, before I get into the subject that I will be discussing today, let me just note that ``American made'' is only important if there are Americans actually in the jobs.

Who is the friend and who is the enemy of American workers today? Certainly the party that is permitting massive flow of illegal immigrants into our country in order to take the jobs that are being created is not a friend of the American working people.

Let us take a look at why Americans have prospered. We have prospered because, yes, we have technology and we have jobs. But it is also because we have not permitted this massive immigration that now seems to be flowing across and has been for the last 10 and 20 years.

If we have industries that are going to succeed and jobs that are going to be created, we must first control our borders so that all of the jobs that we hear about being created are given to Americans, not to people who come here illegally.

It is unfortunate that that part of the debate in how illegal immigration has been bringing down the quality of life, taking jobs away from Americans, that that has not been part of the debate that we have heard over the media.

In fact, last week, we had an example where the Democratic party members here were unable to support a bill on the floor commending those brave souls who are defending our border and trying to stem the flow--the massive flow of illegal immigration into our country. They couldn't get themselves to back that.

Now, I went to an ICE facility, which is the group in our government that actually runs the facilities and helps us control this massive flow into our country, and the people there, yes, there were over 300 being held, and they were going to be returned. They were doing a good job for us.

And the fact is, in California, the Democratic party has gone so far overboard, they won't even permit local law enforcement--they have actually outlawed--they call it the sanctuary State law--they won't even let local governments permit them to use their own law enforcement to cooperate with Federal authorities in order to deal with illegal alien criminals.

Now, something is wrong here. We can hear all this talk about attacking Republicans as if all the tax money that was saved in this tax bill went to rich people. No, that is not the case. And what is also not the case is that the very jobs that are being created by such programs are going to foreigners who are here illegally, unless we do something about it.

So with that said, I would like to get into the issue that I really would like to--that I was intending to discuss today, and it has everything to do also with American prosperity. American prosperity didn't just happen. So I call this the Fight to Save America's Patent System.

We Americans are blessed to be part of a Nation where average people who live right and work hard can expect safety, a decent standard of living, and opportunities beyond the dreams of those who just struggle to survive in so much of the world--which is also why we have to control the borders. Because we do have a high standard of living in this world and we have this high standard of living for average people, it is not just a gift from God, but it is also a result of fundamental policies and laws that have governed our

land, including immigration laws, I might add, that prevent this massive flow of illegals into our country that we have been having to deal with.

Policies were put into place by brave, hardworking, forward-looking patriots over the years who struggled to create this new country, the United States of America. And they put in place fundamental laws that were aimed at protecting the rights of each and every person in the country.

One of those rights, which is often overlooked, was delineated in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. In fact, considering the fact that the Bill of Rights was added to the document as a package of amendments, it is the only place in the original body of the Constitution where the word ``right'' is used. This is that part of our basic law of the land that mandates that writers and inventors have the right to exclusively control their creation for a specified period of time. That is in the Constitution. And that specified period of time, which through most of our history was 17 years--17 years for our inventors to control and profit from what they have created.

Benjamin Franklin probably inserted this into the Constitution without much fanfare, yet it has been a factor that has made all the difference. Ordinary Americans have lived good and decent lives here, not necessarily because we have worked harder--because people work hard all over the world--but we have prospered because not only have our people worked hard, but they have had the technological edge. We have multiplied the impact of every hour of labor with machines and equipment that existed only as a result of the genius of our people.

Progress was shared by all because we have nurtured our inventors, protected their intellectual property rights, and permitted them to profit from their genius. Our standard of living as a people became the envy of the world, and all this can be traced to a strong, fair, and honest patent system.

I have got good news. American inventors, the folks who are so often taken for granted, are deeply appreciated by the new Trump administration. Secretary Wilbur Ross and the new director of the United States Patent Office, Andrei Iancu--I guess that is how you pronounce that--are making sure that America's greatest assets, our inventors and our innovators, are protected. This is, of course, a reversal of what has been going on in recent years.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office, or the USPTO, is the Federal agency tasked with the job of protecting America's new ideas and investments in innovation and creativity. Over the years, there have been 58 different men and women leading this agency.

Our newest USPTO director, Andrei Iancu, shows the promise to be perhaps one of the best in that long line that extends back more than 200 years. Director Iancu has a long history in innovation, from his work as an engineer at Hughes Aircraft Company and his legal career that focused on intellectual property litigation. He has assured me personally that he will fight to protect the intellectual property of our inventors, and he will demand that accountability and transparency are hallmarks in the patent office under his watch. His positive commitment is refreshing. That is, to make sure that we have this transparency and accountability that he is talking about is a refreshing contrast to past office leadership.

Most of my colleagues and most of my fellow Americans have rarely noticed the conflict that has been quietly raging here in Washington for the last three decades. It has been an ongoing struggle with major impact on the security of our country and the well-being of the American people.

Yet few Members of Congress are even aware of how critical this fight is, and because the fight is usually fought in legalese, the American people are unaware of the issues being determined. What I am talking about is an ongoing clandestine attack on America's patent system by powerful multinational corporations. Their aim has been to gain a free hand to use any technology with no worry of compensating the inventor of that said technology.

American companies and American workers have succeeded by being on the cutting edge and a notch above foreign competition. This is because our innovators have been protected by the best patent system in the world. Yet, we hear these calls globally, and in collusion with domestic power brokers, demands that we harmonize our system with the rest of the world.

If there is any harmonization, it should be the rest of the world rising up to our long-held standards which have been instrumental in enabling our way of life and our country's greatness. We absolutely should not lower America's standards.

But that is exactly what a powerful coalition has been pushing for. And in 2012, with the America Invents Act, they finally were able to undermine significant protections of our patent system. The implications of that law are just now becoming evident.

So, for three decades, legislation aimed at weakening America's patent protection has been pushed and re-pushed, whittling away, and restructuring with the goal to diminish the rights of our inventors. This establishment thinks these are people who are just in the way. The anti-patent juggernaut cabal even managed to change who will be issued a patent.

Up until 2012, up until that law, for more than two centuries, the actual inventor of new technology was legally considered the rightful owner of the invention and thus designated as the recipient of the patent for that new technology.

This longstanding and commonsense policy was shifted by that 2012 bill so that now, not the inventor, but the first entity to file for the patent gets the patent. Hear that again: The actual inventor doesn't get the patent. In an age of hacking and predatory corporations, this is a disaster in the making.

Even as we lost ground in the legislative fight to protect our inventors' rights, there was even less awareness of a change in the way they were doing business inside the Patent Office. There has always been a strict guideline directing the decisions and actions of the professionals and civil servants the Patent Office.

Approval of a patent application was not left up to the whims of those making the decision. If an application met the requirements, objective criteria, and the proper procedures were followed, if that happened, the Patent Office employee was mandated to do his or her duty, not to think how they should feel about the economic and societal changes that might be brought about when a new technology is introduced, or what groups would benefit and which ones wouldn't, if this new technology was patented.

I am not certain what precipitated the power play, but, in 1994, changes began happening surreptitiously inside the Patent Office itself, even as overt legislative campaigns were taking place to weaken our patent system, and they were being launched on the outside.

So you had people working on the inside and the outside, trying to weaken the patent protection of American inventors.

A new procedure was quietly made part of the system inside. It was theoretically aimed at alerting senior patent personnel that a patent with serious consequences was soon to be granted and, thus, given more intense scrutiny. It was called SAWS, Sensitive Application Warning System. But, as you would imagine, as soon as this secretive new element was added to the Patent Office procedures, it began to have much more of an impact than supposedly intended.

Unauthorized and hidden SAWS rules and determinations were made that had a major impact on the basic business of the Patent Office, the issuing or denial of an inventor's patent. Some Patent Office officials took it upon themselves to violate the clear legal boundaries that were in place specifically to prevent well-intended subjectivity from running wild. SAWS had a big impact, much bigger than they ever thought, and it had no scrutiny.

So inventors were being skewered from the outside by those legislators mobilized by powerful multinational corporations, and by other special interests as well, I might add, and on the inside by an in-the-shadows system that permitted unrestricted consideration, no visibility, and no accountability.

It took more than 20 years for this to come to light and officially ended. In

2015, the SAWS program was exposed and made public. And after congressional hearings and inquiries, the Patent Office announced the program had been retired. As one senior patent official told me, ``That program had to go.''

So it has been an ongoing struggle on the outside and on the inside to maintain the strength and integrity of America's patent system.

On the legislative side, there is a bipartisan coalition now, led by dedicated Representatives like Marcy Kaptur of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky. They just introduced H.R. 6264, Restoring America's Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018, a bill that will, if we can get it enacted, undo many of the legislative setbacks America's patent system has suffered in the last two decades. I am, of course, an original cosponsor of that bill, and I invite my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring it.

There is really good news--and here is some really good news--from the executive branch. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross is deeply committed to protecting the intellectual property of American inventors. He is willing to fight the good fight to protect us against foreign competitors who would steal our inventors' genius and use it against our own hardworking people.

Secretary Ross is working with our new director of the Patent Office, Andrei Iancu, and he is committed to protecting inventors and creators. Both of them, with President Trump's guidance and Vice President Pence's encouragement, are declaring that the patent system will be totally transparent and fully accountable.

I might say, Director Iancu has just reaffirmed that commitment in a written statement to Congress:

Today, at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, every

action we take is on the public record and recorded in a

publicly available database.

So there is reason for optimism that we have turned a corner in our long-term efforts to protect--and, yes, reclaim and maintain and repair--some of the damages that have been done from both the outside attack of our patent system and the inside, out-of-line actions that were taken without oversight or accountability, like the SAWS program.

It is not appropriate to cover up or withhold information. It is time to make up for those past errors and to set a path for America's Patent Office to offer efficient, honest, and totally above-board service.

The new director has his hands full. But he has the right game plan: total transparency and full accountability.

When it comes to innovation and technology, we are, with our American President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Commerce, and the team over at the Patent Office, together, making America great again.

So I would ask my colleagues, please, I know this is a complicated issue, we talked to the American people, we know that patent law seems like it should be complicated, but it is not. For someone who invents something, our Founding Fathers put into place a property right for those people who invent, an inventor, to be able, at least for 17 years, have control over his or her invention.

This has worked well for the United States. It is so sad that, for decades now, they have been trying to undermine it. But we are reclaiming that today with the Trump administration, the Secretary of Commerce, the head of the Patent Office, and the Vice President of the United States, who are dedicated to protecting the rights of our inventors and, thus, protecting the great standard of living and the safety of the United States of America, which is so dependent on having a technological edge against any competitor or enemy.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to honor the service to our country of an exemplary American, Zach Martinez. Born in East Los Angeles, Mr. Martinez entered the United States Navy in 1966, answering the call to duty as our country engaged in one of its most agonizing conflicts, the Vietnam war. He answered by throwing himself fully into harm's way for the freedom of the Vietnamese people and fighting shoulder to shoulder with his brothers in arms. A mine explosion left him with shrapnel torn into his body and a steel ball bearing in his skull. He returned home, not only with a richly deserved Purple Heart, but with a determination to nurture the spiritual health of his fellow veterans. He became a certified chaplain offering free counseling to those suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Even more: He rallied his fellow citizens to found and maintain grounds dedicated to our heroic veterans in Huntington Beach, called Patriot Point, where on this day a memorial service will take place in his honor. To his wife Alberta, his three sons and six grandchildren, I want them to know that he inspires this Member of Congress to serve our country with all the spiritual fortitude and love that he so manifestly gave. May all of us here be so inspired.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the brutal persecution of the Sindhi people in Pakistan.

Throughout the Sindh Province, and especially in Karachi, millions of Sindhi people are victimized by the Punjabi-dominated regime in Islamabad.

This grave injustice and massive human rights crisis involves extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, and tactics common in many totalitarian dictatorships.

This oppression of the Sindhis is the work of the Inter-Services Intelligence, that is the ISI, of Pakistan, and the corrupt Pakistani Army.

More than 154 Sindhi people have been reported missing just since August 2017. Among those includes Dr. Anwar Laghari, who is a physician who actually led the Sindhi people and the stalwarts in opposition to violent Islamic militarism, and that is why he was targeted by the ISI.

Pakistan has made their choice to drop its alliance with the United States and form a new partnership with China and radical Islam, and they are now making war on their own people.

The United States should stand with the people of Pakistan, not their oppressive government.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the brutal persecution of the Sindhi people in Pakistan. Throughout Sindh Province and especially in Karachi, millions of Sindhi people are victimized by the Punjabi dominated regime in Islamabad.

This is a grave injustice and a massive human rights crisis involving extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, and tactics common in China, Turkey, Iran and other totalitarian dictatorships.

This oppression of the Sindhis is the work of the Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) and the corrupt Pakistan Army.

More than 154 Sindhi people have been reported missing just since August 2017. Among the hundreds abducted and killed include Dr. Anwar Laghari, a physician and human rights leader who is a hero to the Sindhi people. Like Dr. Laghari the Sindhis are stalwarts in their opposition to violent Islamist militants, which is why they have been targeted by ISI.

Pakistan has made its choice to drop its alliance with the United States and form a new partnership with China and radical Islam. Blatant betrayals like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor project and sheltering Osama Bin Laden indicate that Pakistan has long ago morphed away from being our friend and is now our enemy.

And, Pakistan is at war with its own people, not only the Sindhis, but the Baluch and many of the Pashtun tribes are also targeted for harsh human rights abuses. America needs to face reality--stand with these persecuted peoples--and treat Pakistan like the corrupt narco- trafficking gangster regime allied with radical Islam that it is.

Mr. Speaker, on May 8th, one of California's best governors passed on. George Deukmejian as Governor showed us how to power up an economy, unleash private enterprise, keep taxes at bay, keep violent criminals behind bars while turning the Golden State even more golden.

Like many Californians, George didn't come from our state. Rather, he headed west from his boyhood in New York to find opportunity, to earn his living, to dream the big dream and create a life for his wife Gloria and his kids George Jr., Leslie and Andrea.

He took a risk to head west and make a new life. Once he got to California he quickly excelled as an attorney, then moved on to make laws as well as enforce them. He was first elected to the California Assembly from his home town, Long Beach. The voters then moved him on to the State Senate. From there he was elected statewide to the office of Attorney General. In 1982, the strong, yet quiet-spoken man was elected Governor of California.

With George at the helm, California enjoyed a surge of new economic growth: Silicon Valley came into its own, churning out more chips and computers; Hollywood pumped out more movies and TV and other entertainment, agriculture produced more food that fed the country and indeed the world. And all the while, the California aerospace industry built the rockets that took us into space, and created state-of-the-art aircraft and high-tech innovations that continue to keep our nation safe and economically superior to all enemies and competitors.

George Deukmejian, however, shouldn't be judged only by the state's startling economic record while he was Governor of California. His understanding and commitment to the rule of law and respect for our traditions and rules of civility defined him as a person and as a public figure. George Deukmejian knew that peace and safety were prerequisites of a happy life. He was, indeed, tough on crime, but his motives were based on protecting victims, and yes, the innocent. But even though his call sign was the ``Iron Duke'', he was a leader with a good heart and a strong belief in American democratic ideals. It is often overlooked, for example, that Governor George Deukmejian led a fight in California to divest the state of assets tied to the racist apartheid government of South Africa.

This commitment to freedom was not an anomaly. George's family were survivors of the Armenian genocide of Ottoman Turkey. From the first- hand accounts of his family of this monstrous crime, he opened his eyes to the evil that plagues the world. The Deukmejian family found refuge in America to start a new life. George learned from his family's experience to look forward with optimism and embrace the goodness and gifts that America had to offer. ``True North'' was George's moral compass in governance, while principles and integrity were his twin anchors. Folks across the political spectrum admired him as a great political leader. From humble beginnings he became one of California's great governors. Former Governor Deukmejian lived in retirement in his modest home in Long Beach. We shall miss him and we are grateful for his lifetime of service. He made California and America a better place.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a simple but crucial amendment to the THRIVE Act to ensure that local governments have a say in which sober living homes are able to participate in this demonstration program.

My amendment would require the nonprofits who apply for funding under this bill to prove that the Federal dollars they receive are distributed only to facilities that have permission from the relevant local government to operate in that location.

The proliferation of unlicensed sober living homes in residential communities in my district and throughout our country has had a deleterious impact on local residents and has not well-served the drug and alcohol addicts the program is supposed to help.

Many--not all, but many--of these facilities are owned and operated by unscrupulous actors. These bad actors totally disregard the impact on local residents of the neighborhoods as well as those who reside in the sober living homes themselves. The Federal Government must not subsidize this.

It is not only the surrounding neighborhood that suffers in these circumstances, but also recovering addicts whose treatment facility has no oversight and sometimes no actual personal program for recovery. This bill with my amendment produces a balanced first step toward helping the victims of the opioid epidemic while safeguarding the rights of families, homeowners, and local communities.

I am grateful for the support of my friend and colleague Congressman Barr, and I am grateful for his support through this amendment. I urge the rest of my colleagues to join with us and vote in favor of this amendment.

I would also note that it is the Federal Fair Housing Act that shields the bad actors and prevents local governments from doing anything meaningful about the problems associated with sober living homes. Municipalities face costly litigation for trying to address their transient nature, and local residents often experience an increase in crime in their neighborhoods, not to mention other threats to their quality of life.

The THRIVE Act does not address the Fair Housing Act, but I have authored a bill that would do this. I encourage a serious consideration of H.R. 5724, the Restoring Community Oversight of Sober Living Homes Act.

My bill would narrowly amend the Fair Housing Act to return to local governments their proper zoning authority to manage sober living homes in a manner acceptable to the local people and something that will help those drug addicts as well as the local community. So I gladly offer this amendment and ask my colleagues to consider both this amendment as well as the bill that I will submit on this issue.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this legislation and especially this part of the bill, which includes a provision that declares Dr. Afridi an international hero.

For those who don't remember Dr. Afridi, who now languishes in a Pakistani prison, this was the brave soul who helped us identify Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the slaughter of 3,000 Americans on 9/11.

Pakistan arrested him on trumped up charges, and he now lingers in a dungeon, ignored by us, ignored by the world.

This is an international hero. This is a man with courage.

It is a disgrace that our country still has relations, when Pakistan rubs this in our face. I would hope that this Congress--and, Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for putting this in the bill that we are declaring to the world Dr. Afridi must be freed, and he is a hero, an international hero to all of humankind.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4053, and I thank Chairman Shimkus for the great leadership he has provided on this bill on this really significant issue.

This bill authorizes the construction of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste storage site, which would alleviate the burden of incredible risk that is now borne by communities throughout the country, such as in my district, where homes are not far located from the closed San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

That, and many other plants throughout the Nation, have closed their doors in decades. Yet, Congress has yet to agree how to safely store that waste, and what is really important is we must store the waste.

But while we develop new nuclear energy technologies, that we are capable of doing, that are safe, and produce less of their own waste, and can consume the waste of older plants, I reminded Secretary of Energy Perry of that yesterday; but, in the meantime, until that technology--by the way, it is sinful that we have not developed that technology, which we are capable of, that could eat this waste.

But until we do, having safe storage at Yucca Mountain makes all the sense to me and is safe for my constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Restoring Community Oversight of Sober Living Homes Act of 2018. This bill addresses Federal policies that have resulted in the proliferation of sober living homes in residential neighborhoods.

These so-called homes, which are really businesses in all but name, house drug and alcohol addicts in single-family residences. This infusion of drug addicts and alcoholics into residential communities has had a deleterious impact on the quality of life of local families who now suffer increases in police activity, transient residences next door, and a decline of property values.

Federal law has shielded unscrupulous owners, operators, and inhabitants of these so-called sober living homes from meaningful oversight. The well-being of the neighbors that surround them has been ignored. This is a travesty.

My bill will empower the communities and the States to prohibit such facilities in residential areas if that is the will of the local people. I now submit this legislation and ask my colleagues to cosponsor the bill, which is based on the principle of federalism, protecting local residential communities across our land.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman DeFazio and, of course, Chairman Shuster for their hard work that they put into this.

Unfortunately, my amendment, as it indicates, is that a large part of the job that I would have hoped that would have been accomplished by the FAA reauthorization was not done in a way that handles what is, in my area, the most significant problem. There are a great many provisions there. But my amendment today, which I am advocating today, seeks to correct one area that has been given underwhelmingly little treatment in this legislation, and that is called: correcting the problems of air noise over our neighborhoods.

My amendment, the amendment we are discussing at this point, will ensure that aircraft transitioning from flight over ocean to flight over land be no lower than is absolutely necessary for safety.

Many times over our coastal communities, planes are flying much lower on approach, after taking off, and briefly climbing back over the ocean and then over the land.

There is no reason that some aircraft need to be at 1,600 feet when other aircraft can safely fly at 3,500 feet. This amendment will correct that problem. It will require those aircraft that are coming over the ocean and onto land and into some flight pattern in our local airports and nationally in those airports, that they fly at the highest altitude that is safe in this situation.

Unfortunately, I have had four amendments that were not permitted that would have corrected the noise problem altogether and it would have said that we would have then been able to address it.

The reason it wasn't addressed as the bill was being prepared is that this legislation and the regulations of the FAA say that safety will be the first priority, efficiency will be the second priority, and then community impact on those communities below have third priority.

Well, the fact is there is no reason why--number one, safety does have to be first, we know that--but there is no reason why the excessive noise and the impact of noise and pollution on the cities below a landing area or a taking-off area should not have more consideration than simply the efficiency of the airlines to save a few minutes.

I am very upset that those amendments that would have corrected this problem--number one, all we have to do is make sure that we are mandating the right priorities for the FAA; that efficiency is less important than the communities that are being flown over, because every day, those people have to experience noise and pollution due to the fact that they live near an airport.

So those amendments, however, were not made in order, and I would officially hope that we can deal with that later, but that is a great disservice to those people around the country who are suffering excessive noise that didn't need to happen.

So this amendment goes far enough in terms of an issue like that, but we should be solving the problem by changing the priorities and mandating that all airplanes, when they are flying over populated areas, the people who they are flying over have to be given consideration by making sure that that plane is flying at the highest altitude that is safe.

Unfortunately, as I say, the amendments that I offered that would have mandated that actually were not made in order.

This amendment will come to grips a little bit on this issue, but we had an opportunity here to change and to solve one of the basic complaints that are being made throughout our country by American citizens when dealing with air traffic.

When we are here, our job isn't just to watch out for the airliners. That is not it. We have to be considerate about the American people, and especially those people whose homes are there underneath the flight patterns.

That is not what has happened in this legislation, and I am very disturbed about it, because I had five amendments that would have solved this problem once and for all, would have been fair to the airlines, would have made sure we were safe, that people were safe, but at the same time, we would see that the American people who live underneath these flight paths were treated fairly and that their families were not put at risk by excessive noise and by pollution that comes from airlines flying overhead.

Mr. Chair, I ask for my amendment to be accepted, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2809.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Smith for the great job that he has been doing, and also to Subcommittee Chairman Babin and Subcommittee Ranking Member Bera. This is truly a bipartisan piece of legislation, and I believe under Chairman Smith's leadership, we have had a bipartisan committee in the Science, Space and Technology Committee.

H.R. 2809, the American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act, clears up the doubt around commercial space activities. Which agency is responsible? Who will give me the answers?

It is hard enough to create a new technology and develop new markets without having to get five different answers about which bureaucrat needs to sign off on what form. This uncertainty, this confusion, has forced companies overseas, much in the same way that companies were forced overseas before the Commercial Space Act of 2004, of which I was the author.

Now, as then, it is the fault of Congress for not keeping up with the industry. Now, as then, we choose to enable American cutting-edge space companies by providing the framework in which they can build, test, and create. Now, as then, we choose to lead the world, and we are making this a better world through our space enterprise.

Do you remember when long-distance telephone calls cost a fortune? Ordinary people could not make phone calls to their loved ones. So in a way, by bringing down the cost and enhancing the quality of that type of communication through space-based enterprise, we have expanded the goodwill of people towards each other and their families throughout the world.

We have made sure, for example, that with space-based assets, even farmers know when to plant, thus we have more food production at a cheaper price, and space-based assets have made America safer.

Mr. Speaker, it has been an honor to work with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) on these space-related issues, and I would hope that we continue to work together in cooperation, showing America's young people that we believe in the future, and whether it is Republican or Democrat, we are going to work together to make sure they have that future they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H. Res. 774.

Mr. Speaker, Corona Del Mar resident Ronald Loutherback passed on April 5, 2018 from heart failure. Ron was a deeply religious person, a kind and outgoing man who was an American patriot to the core and actively supported conservative events. He leaves his wife Therese Loutherback, children Lonnie and Debra, three grandchildren and three great-grandchildren. Ron is best known for being the founder and president of THE WINE CLUB, premium discount wine retail stores that earned the honor by Southern Wine and Spirits magazine as being the best premier wine shops in the United States. His shops were located in Santa Ana, San Francisco, and Santa Clara since 1985, and were sold in 2000. Ron had belonged to the Sunny Hills Tennis Club, the Newport Beach Tennis Club, and the Santa Ana Country Club. He lived life to the fullest and was loved by all. He will be truly missed.

Mr. Speaker, the shutdown is over, at least temporarily.

The American people should pay attention to what this was all about, how come the government shut down. The issue at hand which made sure that there was a separation, an opinion, that shut down the government was the following: should we be legalizing the status of 850,000 young people who were brought here illegally and came here illegally.

The bottom line is we are talking about not tens, but hundreds, of millions, even billions, of dollars that would be siphoned away from that fund that we have here in Washington aimed at helping the American people. That money, the money that we have available for the veterans, available for seniors, available for our own young people, would be drained in order to give, yes, hundreds of millions of dollars to people who have come here illegally.

Of course, 850,000 young people would then be given the right to bring in their relatives; so we are talking about millions of people being brought here because of 850,000 illegal young people here.

The American people, whose side are we on? That was the question about this shutdown. Pay attention. The American people, will they have to have all of their resources drained away in order to take care of people who have come here illegally? No.

I hope the American people pay close attention to who is siding with the American people versus who is siding with foreigners who have come here illegally and letting them suck up scarce funds here in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, today I call on my colleagues to join me in recognizing the visit of the President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, to the United States and Kazakhstan's assumption of the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council.

Over the past 26 years, Kazakhstan and the United States have built a strategic partnership based on mutual trust and friendship. Additionally, Kazakhstan has been and remains a vital partner in the fight against violent Islamic extremists--which is a threat to both of our countries--and Astana is an advocate of religious freedom and tolerance.

Since declaring its independence from the former Soviet Union in 1991, Kazakhstan has built a market-oriented economy continuing to be a valued partner of the United States. I congratulate the people of Kazakhstan on that achievement.

Despite its vast mineral wealth, Kazakhstan is committed to diversifying its economy, in line with the Strategy-2050, its national vision for future development. The strategy calls for widespread economic, social and political reforms with the goal of positioning Kazakhstan as one of the top 30 global economies by 2050.

Since its independence, Kazakhstan has attracted $260 billion in foreign direct investment, with another $100 billion forecast for the next decade. The United States is a large contributor, with foreign direct investment worth billions of US dollars entering the Kazakh economy. This makes the US one of the largest investors in Kazakhstan.

Kazakhstan hosted an EXPO in 2017 with a theme of ``Future Energy,'' which showcased successful US-Kazakhstan collaboration. Kazakhstan seeks to become a leader in promoting renewable energy.

Kazakhstan remains a reliable and trusted partner in the region, and I look forward to our work together to improve human rights, economic freedom and security inside Kazakhstan and across the region.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 676, which puts America squarely on the side of courageous Iranians who risk their lives in opposition to the corruption and oppression of the mullah regime in Tehran.

Iran is a country made up of oppressed minorities. It is a country made up of Kurds--there are more Kurds in Iran than there are in Iraq-- Balochis, Azerias, Arabs, and yes, anticlerical Persians. These people have lived under a regime that terrorizes their population into submission and supports terrorist attacks on other nations.

Unlike our last President, who closed his ears to the pleas of the Iranian oppressed and brutalized people--and also, I might add, facilitated the transfer of billions of dollars to that regime in the name of an arms control agreement--that President is gone, and our new President is making us proud today by endorsing the rights of those who are struggling for freedom and putting our country and people squarely on the side of those people who share our values in freedom and justice throughout the world.