Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 21st Century Flood Reform Act, which would give communities in the Tampa Bay area and all of our constituents a National Flood Insurance Program that serves as a lifeboat when disaster strikes.

Right now, the NFIP is more like an anchor tied around our neck, dragging this country deeper and deeper into debt as the waters rise.

With a $1.4 billion annual deficit and debt that continues to grow, this program desperately needs reform, and H.R. 2874 is our opportunity.

We should all recognize that the NFIP is not a relief program. It is an insurance program. It is supposed to insure against losses, which entails far more than simply paying for damages.

Insurance is not about relief. It is about responsibly managing risk. Insurance means mitigating risks before disaster strikes, making investments in resiliency measures, telling people when the risk they face is simply too great, and providing service that makes people thankful for choosing your product.

No one knows this better than the professionals in the insurance industry who work day in and day out to help Americans protect their lives, their loved ones, and their belongings against all types of threats--car crashes, earthquakes, and wildfires.

Regrettably, Federal policy has made it extremely difficult for private insurers to write policies that cover flood risk. We have created a virtual monopoly for the NFIP at the expense of policyholders and taxpayers alike, yet we are still $30 billion in debt.

H.R. 2874, which includes my bipartisan Private Flood Insurance Market Development Act, will allow the private sector to compete to help homeowners manage thei exposure to floods.

Competition can lower costs, provide more affordable options for consumers, and reduce the unacceptable number of uninsured homes by helping people understand their risk.

As it stands now, the NFIP is the worst of all worlds: It is too big to fail. It is also bound to fail.

With this legislation, we can make substantial progress in turning around a program that has found itself on the GAO's high-risk list for the last decade.

Under this bill, consumers will finally have an opportunity to select among a menu of options a plan that would fit their needs. As a result, they will be more likely to buy insurance than ever before.

That is not the case today with the NFIP. Our constituents are severely limited. $250,000 maximum coverage on an NFIP policy. If you own a business, you are not going to get business interruption coverage.

What good is the insurance, then?

Thankfully, the private sector is capable of offering more robust policies that also provide more incentives for property owners to invest in mitigation and resiliency. Ultimately, this increased emphasis on mitigation will benefit homeowners and taxpayers alike.

This legislation will help us end the absurd practice of paying to rebuild a home that has been destroyed by flooding on more than three occasions.

Further, it strengthens the NFIP by directing FEMA to spread the NFIP's risk onto the global marketplace.

This bill also contains more funding for mitigation and recovery than has ever been authorized by Congress. Over $1 billion will be made available by this bill to help manage our constituents' exposure to floods and improve the safety of a home after a catastrophe.

Mr. Speaker, let's support the freedom to insure against obvious danger that imperils people's homes and their wallets. Let's support informed decisionmaking.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to congratulating the people of Taiwan on the occasion of their National Day this coming October 10, I would like to reiterate my strong support for both the Taiwan Relations Act (also known as the TRA) and the bilateral trade agreement between Taiwan and the United States.

Economic bonds between Taiwan and the United States have continued to grow due to various bilateral mechanisms and exchanges including: the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement, the Digital Economy Forum, the SelectUSA Investment Summit, the United States Business Day, and the Agricultural Trade Goodwill Mission. In 2016, two-way trade of goods between Taiwan and the United States exceeded $65 billion, making Taiwan the United States' 10th largest trading partner.

Since 1993, Taiwan has maintained its spot on the list of the top seven countries importing U.S. agricultural products. Altogether, Taiwanese importers have purchased nearly $30 billion in U.S. grain products. In 2016, Taiwan imported $3.4 billion worth of U.S. agricultural products, roughly one-quarter of Taiwan's annual agricultural imports.

Taiwan is not only a valuable trade partner, but our nations have a strong relationship based on shared values of freedom, democracy, and human rights, as well as interests in enhancing peace, security and prosperity in the Asia Pacific region. I look forward to continue working with my colleagues to address the global challenges that face Taiwan and continue our prosperous relationship.

Mr. Speaker, for over 50 years, the only game in town for flood insurance has been the Federal Government through the National Flood Insurance Program. That means that for over 50 years, if you want flood insurance, your best bet is to go to the Federal Government, which, by the way, especially after these two successive storms that have just hit Texas and Florida, is going to be over $30 billion in debt.

If we don't do something to save the taxpayers of this program that cannot actuarially support itself, we are doing a total disservice to our constituency and to our country. So what is part of the underlying bill that this rule will allow is the Market Parity and Modernization Act that will allow consumers to have a choice between the existing Flood Insurance Program, which is significantly in debt, or to have the private sector bring in their flood insurance programs to insure those risks.

In Florida, back in 2004, we had successive hurricanes that came through my district, and we had billions of dollars paid by FEMA, paid by NFIP, but we had $39 billion paid by the private sector because we had private windstorm insurance. The private sector does a much better job of doing business and managing risks than the Federal Government.

What I am asking for this body to accept, what the American people are craving for, is competition in the products they seek to have to protect them with their valuable assets. It is kind of like the Flood Insurance Program is a boat, and after 50 years of plugging holes, it is taking on water more and more.

One of the suggestions is, let's just keep bailing. I submit to you that to any logical person, the first step would be to plug that hole. We are going to continue to bail. We need to continue to bail, but we need to plug that hole so we don't get deeper and deeper in debt.

So the underlying bill, the FAA reauthorization, has the Ross-Castor bill in there for a reason, so that we can invite a private market to come to the rescue of those consumers out there who need to not only be able to have options greater than what the National Flood Insurance Program provides, because they don't provide business interruption. They don't provide temporary housing, but the private sector will. More importantly, the private sector will mitigate and will manage that risk.

There is no mitigation program that is effective in the Federal Government right now. It is a flowing of dollars to say: Here, do this; or, do that.

Private risk management will help consumers mitigate, lessen their risks, have more resilient homes.

What I am suggesting to you is that this is a paradigm shift for this country. That if we are going to say that the business of the United States should be left to business, and government should do what government should do, then this is a move in that direction because government should not be in the business of insurance. It is in the business of relief.

There is no question about that, but relief is post-event help. Insurance is pre-event. It is calculating that risk. It is managing that risk. And that is what the private sector does so well. We owe it to our consumers and we owe it to our taxpayers who are bailing out the NFIP, that we give consumers this choice.

I would just submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if we have a chance to finally make a paradigm shift when we take the burden of bailouts off the shoulders of taxpayers and allow those who do best what they do best in managing capital and managing risk, do so for the benefit of the consumers, that this underlying bill and the FAA reauthorization allows for that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2017, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this desperately needed legislation.

Included in this bill are two provisions that are particularly important to my constituents in central Florida. One is tax relief for families and small businesses recovering from the destruction of Hurricanes Harvey, Maria, and Irma. The other is language taken from my legislation, the Private Flood Insurance Market Development Act, which will allow private sector insurers to compete with the National Flood Insurance Program.

The catastrophic impact of the three major hurricanes is heartbreaking and tragic. However, it has been inspiring to witness the outpouring of charity and goodwill from our communities in response.

Now it is time for this Congress to rise to the occasion. The tax relief for disaster victims in this legislation is a great first step.

This bill will help individuals in the disaster areas keep their jobs, support retirement savers paying for recovery, encourage charitable contributions to help victims, and put more money in the pockets of families trying to get their lives back on track after having lost everything.

To deny our constituents this relief because it is not enough is simply irresponsible. To be sure, I agree that more aid will likely be needed.

But is that really a good excuse to do nothing?

I certainly don't think so.

Mr. Speaker, this bill isn't just about providing immediate relief. Thankfully, it also provides some measure of long-term relief to communities vulnerable to floods--the most costly of all natural disasters.

Thanks to the inclusion of my legislation, H.R. 1422, this bill will provide consumers with more options and lower costs in the flood insurance marketplace as well as help to reduce the unacceptable number of homes not insured for flood losses.

Last Congress, this House passed nearly identical legislation by a vote of 419-0. That is why I was so disheartened to hear some characterize this reform as a long-time Republican priority. This isn't a Republican priority, and it is not a Democratic priority. This is a national priority.

The NFIP is more than $25 billion in debt and runs an annual deficit of $1.4 billion. Folks, this is an insurance company on the brink of being unable to pay out claims to policyholders without another taxpayer bailout.

The NFIP desperately needs to off-load some of its risk, and we can help by allowing the private sector to do what it does best: compete for customers by offering better service, lower prices, and more comprehensive coverage.

I understand some of my colleagues think competition will destabilize the NFIP. First, we need to be clear that the NFIP in its current state is beleaguered, it is not stable, and it is not sustainable. Reforms must be made.

Second, I would urge my colleagues to recognize that by forcing nearly all of the flood risk in this Nation into a single, government- run insurance program, we contribute to the NFIP's bloated and unstable risk portfolio.

So the NFIP needs some help, and consumers need competition. More coverage options will help make flood insurance an attractive investment for everyone, thereby reducing the number of uninsured homes.

With the NFIP alone, our constituents are severely limited. For example, an NFIP policy only covers up to $250,000 of damages.

In addition, NFIP policies do not cover homeowners displaced by living expenses.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation has an untold number of supporters. I include in the Record a letter from 15 major insurance, housing, banking, and trade associations in support of the private flood insurance provisions in H.R. 3823.

September 26, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: The undersigned trades

and organizations strongly support the ``Development of a

Private Flood Insurance Market'' title of H.R. 3823, the

Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act of

2017. This package includes bipartisan, clarifying language,

introduced by Representative Dennis A. Ross (FL-15) and

Representative Kathy Castor (FL-14), to increase acceptance

of private flood insurance products. This will increase flood

insurance options for consumers, thereby providing more

competition and coverage options to families and businesses.

The Ross-Castor language passed the House last year by a

vote of 419-0, and it was ordered reported out of the House

Financial Services Committee in June by a vote of 58-0. The

bipartisan fix clarifies what is already in federal law

(following the passage of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance

Reform Act of 2012 and reinforced in the Homeowners Flood

Insurance Affordability Act of 2014) intended by Congress to

allow lenders to accept private flood insurance in lieu of

federal

coverage to satisfy the mandatory purchase requirement.

The undersigned trades and organizations strongly support

inclusion of the bipartisan Ross-Castor language in the

Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act of

2017 that allows consumers the choice of government or

private flood insurance coverage. We ask for you to vote in

favor of this important legislative package when it is

considered by the House of Representatives.

Sincerely,

Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI)

Reinsurance Association of America (RAA)

National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC)

National Apartment Association (NAA)

American Bankers Association (ABA)

Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers (CIAB)

American Insurance Association (AIA)

National Association of REALTORS (NAR)

National Association of Professional Insurance Agents (PIA)

Financial Services Roundtable (FSR)

Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America (Big

``I'')

Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA)

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC)

Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA)

National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions

(NAFCU).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sergeant First Class Edward ``Grady'' Halcomb and his brave and selfless acts while serving as a medic for Company B, 1st Battalion of the 29th Infantry Division in the United States Army during the Korean War. Sergeant First Class Halcomb passed away on July 2, 2017.

A veteran of 20 years of service, Sergeant First Class Halcomb's strength and care for his fellow soldiers during the war was truly exemplary. At only 19 years old, he endured and witnessed unspeakable horrors that no one should ever have to experience. No matter how dangerous or grim the circumstances, he never gave up hope on his fellow soldiers, his country or himself.

His company was outnumbered by North Korean troops, depleted of all ammo, and captured. One of only 11 men left after battle, then-Private First Class Halcomb was forced to walk the 120-mile Seoul Death March to Pyongyang, North Korea, where he and more than 300 American troops were held as prisoners of war (POWs).

As numerous soldiers were dying daily from malnutrition and medical issues, Private First Class Halcomb risked his life day-after-day to protect and save his fellow soldiers by helping to negotiate food and medicine for them.

After 85 torturous and terrifying days of being POWs, Private First Class Halcomb and four other soldiers miraculously escaped and were rescued, only days before the rest of the prisoners were brutally murdered.

Sergeant First Class Grady Halcomb's valor, sacrifice and service to this country communicate an incredible testimony of a man who put his life on the line for America and its people. Because of him, and soldiers like him, we are able to enjoy the benefits of living in the greatest nation on Earth.

Although we owe more to Sergeant First Class Halcomb than we can never truly repay, one of my greatest honors and joys of being a Member of Congress was presenting him with the Distinguished Service Cross, for which he so richly deserved and humbly accepted after never seeking any recognition or glory for his heroic actions.

Not only was Sergeant First Class Halcomb a tremendous soldier, he was also an exceptional representation of the Polk County communities that I am honored to represent. Having the opportunity to meet him and his family is a treasure I will forever hold close to my heart.

The depth of appreciation, respect and admiration I have for Sergeant First Class Halcomb and his fellow soldiers is immeasurable. He will be dearly missed.

Let us never forget or take for granted the selfless and courageous acts by Sergeant First Class Halcomb and our service members to protect us and our freedoms every single day. May God bless them all, and may God bless the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Captive Nations Week.

In 1959, Congress authorized and requested the President proclaim the third week in July as Captive Nations Week. During this week, we stand united with those who still live under the rule of communist regimes as they continue fighting against this oppression and lack of human rights. You have my word that I will continue to fight along with you.

As a way to educate current and future generations about the ideology, history, and societal impact of communism, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation was authorized in 1993 by a unanimous act of Congress.

In honor of this foundation, I have introduced H. Con. Res. 57, which expresses the sense of Congress that establishing a museum in memory of the victims of communism is an important step in educating Americans about the human rights violations committed by these totalitarian regimes and telling the whole story of 20th century history.

This museum would honor the memory of the heroes who resisted communist tyranny and commemorate America's more than half a century of efforts resisting Soviet imperialism.

I ask my colleagues to join me during Captive Nations Week in recognizing and supporting victims of communism by cosponsoring H. Con. Res. 57 and bringing the truth to light.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Financial CHOICE Act, a bill that will provide the much-needed relief from the harmful, complex, and excessive regulatory environment created by the Dodd-Frank Act.

In the 7 years since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, our Nation has suffered from anemic economic growth, increasingly limited financial choices for consumers, and an unprecedented level of job- killing regulations. All the while, big banks have grown larger, and small banks and credit unions have suffered. In fact, community banks are closing at the rate of one per day.

Many of my constituents in small and rural towns in the Tampa Bay area rely heavily on their community banks for financial services. When those banks are forced to close their doors or raise their fees due to excessive regulation, my constituents lose access to essential services and opportunities.

Simply put, Dodd-Frank has failed.

The Financial CHOICE Act represents an alternative and effective approach to financial regulation, which will protect taxpayers and bank bailouts, empower investors, and hold government bureaucracies accountable.

This legislation makes it easier for hardworking Americans to save and invest for retirement, college, and their future. It will also increase access to and reduce the cost of credit for families that want to purchase a home or start a business.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of this bill and helping Washington get off the backs of hardworking taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1293) to amend title 5, United States Code, to require that the Office of Personnel Management submit an annual report to Congress relating to the use of official time by Federal employees, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 1293, to amend title 5 of the United States Code to require the Office of Personnel Management to submit an annual report to Congress relating to the use of official time by Federal employees.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to talk about a bill that would provide taxpayers with greater transparency of official time. ``Official time'' is that term that describes when Federal employees do union work on the taxpayers' dime.

The only standard provided by the statute authorizing official time is that the employees perform union work on official time in a manner that is ``reasonable, necessary, and in the public interest.'' Currently, Federal law does not require agencies to report, annually, on the amount of official time their employees perform.

Until March of this year, the Office of Personnel Management had not reported on official time since fiscal year 2012. When the report was released in March, the data was out of date, containing information from fiscal year 2014.

While the Office of Personnel Management may request that agencies provide data related to official time, OPM does not have any set of standards or procedures prescribing the collection of official time data. Considering the burden that official time puts on the taxpayer, more stringent reporting is necessary.

The latest data provided by OPM shows that taxpayers paid $162 million for salary and benefits related to work done in official time in fiscal year 2014, up from $157 million 2 years earlier in fiscal year 2012.

Agencies reported that bargaining unit employees spent a total of 3.5 million hours performing representational activities on official time.

The current lack of stringent reporting requirements, as well as the broad interpretation of the statute's sole requirement that official time be carried out in a way that is reasonable, necessary, and in the public interest, have clearly opened the door to abuse.

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform identified several cases where employees on official time engaged in all sorts of inappropriate activities while on taxpayer-funded time, including everything from leisure to criminal activities. With greater transparency, employees will be less likely to abuse the system, which will result in less waste of taxpayer dollars.

It is by far time we require agencies to provide this information to Congress and to the public. Taxpayers deserve clear, reliable data on how many employees are performing union work on official time in lieu of their regularly assigned government duties.

To accomplish this, H.R. 1293 requires agencies to provide more detailed information to OPM regarding what their employees are doing related to official time. Specifically, the bill requires agencies to report the total amount of official time granted to employees, the average amount of time each employee spends on official time, the specific types of activities for which official time was granted, and the impact official time had on agency operations.

H.R. 1293 requires agencies to report the amount of compensation employees received in connection with the time they spent on activities in connection with official time.

Finally, the bill requires agencies to report a description of rooms and spaces agencies use to conduct official time.

H.R. 1293 will provide taxpayers with the transparency they deserve when it comes to official time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I might just suggest to my good friend from Virginia that this is a reporting bill, that this is the same bill, as amended by their amendment, that was passed out of committee overwhelmingly, that I believe the gentleman from Virginia voted for. So there has not been any change. It is still a transparency reporting bill to make sure that we account for all the time spent in official time on the taxpayer dime. That is it.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to be clear here, because I want to make sure that we are talking about the same bill.

This bill doesn't do anything about union dues. This bill doesn't do anything other than require the transparency of reporting official time. And I would be delighted to engage my good friend from Virginia, whom I have a great deal of respect for, and I have worked very diligently on this committee with for some time, and inquire as to what transpired since this bill left committee until today that would cause him and others who were supportive of it in committee to now say that it is not?

I don't mean to misrepresent anything. While I might have opinions of what I believe, I can tell you factually that this bill is merely, and solely, and exclusively a reporting bill. If I were managing a company and I wanted to know where my resources were, I would want to make sure I managed those resources--including my human resources--so I would like to know where the time of my employees is spent.

There is no prohibition of time being spent. There is no restriction of time being spent. It is merely a reporting bill. It is requiring reporting. It is something the OPM has done before. It was started under President Carter's administration.

Mr. Speaker, I inquire of my good friend if there is anything that has changed to make his opposition now come to the floor?

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

And I appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, while I understand where my colleague from Virginia is taking my comments from, I must submit that at no time did I allege that the Federal employees, all Federal employees, are committing crimes on official time.

I think just the opposite. A vast majority of our Federal employees are probably some of the best workforce that we have out there. I think that, in any workforce, you are going to have some people that don't live up to the standards of their employment. So what I merely do in my opening statement is to say that there has been a need for transparency that includes the abuse of time by some, not by all.

Again, the vast majority of Federal employees are exceptional employees, hardworking, and absolutely necessary to run this great country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my good friend from Virginia to please reconsider, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If I might just, again, clarify for the record, this is a reporting bill. It is a transparency bill. The standard that my good friend from Massachusetts discusses, and that I agreed with, is not affected at all by this bill.

I would have no doubt whatsoever that in similar circumstances that happened after 9/11 in those post offices, that those same employees, regardless of the risk, would do exactly what they did, because that is how valuable they are to the system. That is how valuable they are to this country.

What I can't understand is what has transpired between voting this out of committee to today that has changed the opinion.

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

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

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

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

I appreciate the comments from my friend from Virginia, and I will reiterate my comments made earlier here on this floor that we are very grateful for the Federal workforce that we do have and that they are, by far, one of the best human resources in employment in the world. We are grateful for their service.

As in any case, there might be some bad ones, but, more importantly, all this bill requests is that we just report the transparency of their services and official time. It is neither an indictment nor restriction on Federal time whatsoever, and, in fact, can be used as a tool for Federal employees to justify some of the official time they are doing for the benefit of not only their colleagues, but also this great country.

Mr. Speaker, I would again request that Members of this House support my bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 624) to restrict the inclusion of social security account numbers on documents sent by mail by the Federal Government, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 624, the Social Security Number Fraud Prevention Act of 2017, introduced by my good friend from California, Representative David Valadao.

I want to start by thanking Chairman Brady and Subcommittee Chairman Johnson from the Ways and Means Committee for their assistance in getting this bill to the floor. Their work on addressing the unnecessary use of Social Security numbers is well appreciated by all Americans across the country and especially Members in this body.

Mr. Speaker, we live in an interconnected world. Personal identifiers, such as Social Security numbers, are used for much more than just Social Security benefits. Social Security numbers are widely used to receive government services and to apply for services in the private sector, like opening bank accounts, credit cards, and even applying for college.

The extent to which Social Security numbers are a de facto national identifier has heightened concerns about identity theft. In the wrong hands, a stolen Social Security number can be used for devastating effects.

This bill helps move the government closer to the goal of minimizing unnecessary use of Social Security numbers. All entities in the Federal Government will be prohibited from sending a Social Security account number by mail, unless the head of the entity deems it necessary.

The 24 major CFO Act agencies will also have to issue regulations specifying the circumstances under which inclusion of a Social Security number is deemed necessary. They will have to ensure numbers are redacted partially, where feasible, and to ensure no numbers are visible from the outside of a mail piece.

Finally, agencies will be required to report to Congress on their progress in implementing the requirements of the law.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is very important. The Social Security Administration alone sends 223 million notices containing a full Social Security number every year. We must take care to properly safeguard the personally identifiable information of American citizens. The consequences of failure can be dire.

In 2015, the Office of Personnel Management experienced a major data breach where the personally identifiable information for 22 million Americans was compromised.

The Oversight Committee majority staff report recommended Federal agencies reduce the collection of Social Security numbers and other personally identifiable information.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), who is the author of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

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

Mr. Speaker, we here have an obligation to provide for the common defense, and I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that includes that we provide to defend our citizenry from such crimes as identity theft. This bill is a step in the right direction.

I want to thank my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) for his efforts. I want to thank Mr. Valadao from California for sponsoring this bill.

This is a bipartisan measure that will allow us to address the concerns of modern-day crimes of identity and of modern-day crimes of privacy. It is a bill that moves in the right direction. While it is not the panacea, it is a good first step to protecting our citizenry.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption by my colleagues, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1694.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1694, the Fannie and Freddie Open Records Act of 2017.

Mr. Chairman, transparency is critical. It is critical to oversight and accountability of the Federal Government and how it spends taxpayer dollars. The American public has a right to know how their tax dollars are spent.

The Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, is a key tool for citizens to access information about their government. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not subject to the requirements of FOIA, despite taxpayers' substantial investment into both entities and the government's implicit guaranteed backing of these entities.

Taxpayers have spent $187 billion to bail out Fannie and Freddie, the most sweeping government intervention into private financial markets in decades. Taxpayers are on the hook for $400 billion in lost investments and $5 trillion in mortgage liabilities.

At the same time, the American public is unable to seek accountability from these entities under FOIA. It is far past time we apply FOIA to Fannie and Freddie. There is precedent for applying FOIA to non-traditional quasi-governmental entities. Congress subjected Amtrak to FOIA in recognition of sizeable taxpayer funding.

To stabilize the housing market in the aftershock of the 2008 financial crisis, the Federal Housing Finance Agency placed Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship to return them to financial viability and stockholder control. FHFA is a government entity subject to FOIA. Under the terms of its conservatorship over Fannie and Freddie, FHFA exercises the titles to their books and records, as well as the powers and privileges of Fannie and Freddie.

Despite this government intervention and explicit guarantee, taxpayers, however, are unable to obtain any information from Fannie and Freddie.

H.R. 1694, the Fannie and Freddie Open Records Act of 2017, sponsored by Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz, will allow the American public to submit FOIA requests to Fannie and Freddie as long as the entities remain under FHFA's conservatorship. H.R. 1694 reflects FOIA's presumptions of openness, granting taxpayers information unless an exemption applies.

This bill is a commonsense measure to allow the American public access to basic information regarding entities that they fund with their tax dollars.

The American public should not be in the dark when it comes to what Fannie and Freddie are doing.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Mr. Chairman, as you can see, this is a bill that I think has broad bipartisan support. It is something that we need to do for the taxpayers who have invested so much into Fannie and Freddie over the years. Let's make them subject to FOIA.

I urge support of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, as the designee of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment that I am offering on behalf of Chairman Chaffetz makes technical and conforming changes to the bill.

Applying FOIA to Fannie and Freddie while the entities remain in conservatorship will better ensure that the American people know what their government does with their taxpayer dollars. But, if and when Fannie and Freddie come out of conservatorship, the entities need to be able to operate as commercially competitive businesses.

This amendment clarifies that Fannie and Freddie may use exemption 4, which protects sensitive commercial information from disclosure, regardless of whether information was obtained from a person outside of Fannie or Freddie, to protect their financially sensitive materials from public disclosure.

Mr. Chairman, recognizing the administrative labors involved in setting up FOIA shops, the amendment also addresses the implementation date. Fannie and Freddie will likely need to hire staff, update their websites, and identify records to be made publicly available as a matter of course.

The manager's amendment, therefore, provides Fannie and Freddie 6 months after the bill's enactment to establish their respective staffs and protocols to administer FOIA.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, FOIA does not require that all records be released to requesters. The FOIA statute allows agencies to withhold information under nine exemptions, which were designed to protect truly sensitive information that would be harmful to important interests if released.

Just last year, Congress clarified that the expectation--and now the legal requirement--is that agencies only withhold information when it is necessary to prevent harm to the interest that the exemption was intended to protect. The Johnson amendment clarifies that Fannie and Freddie would be allowed to withhold requested information under those nine exemptions, just as any other agency would be permitted to withhold information, if the enterprises reasonably foresee that disclosure would harm a protected interest.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that Fannie's and Freddie's conservator--the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or FHFA--scrutinize new purchasing strategies to ensure that the enterprises' dealings are in line with their charters to stimulate homeownership. If FHFA fails to guarantee the soundness of their business dealings, FOIA could empower the taxpayer to step in and hold accountable Fannie or Freddie.

For instance, thanks to taxpayers' explicit backing of Fannie earlier this year, Invitation Homes, the single-family rental business owned by the lucrative private equity firm Blackstone, secured a $1.8 billion initial public offering, or IPO, the largest since October of 2015.

In its IPO filing, Invitation Homes disclosed that Fannie, which received over $116 billion from the taxpayers in the aftershock of the financial crisis, is guaranteeing up to $1 billion in debt from Invitation. While Blackstone gets the money, the taxpayers take on the risk; and Fannie pivots unimpeded into the rental markets, leaving those hopeful of homeownership with less support.

Applying FOIA to Fannie and Freddie under this bill strengthens the guarantee that government-sponsored entities are fulfilling their mandate to stimulate homeownership rather than being in the business of supporting profitable, private equity investors on the backs of taxpayers.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment further clarifies the legislation's assurance of applicable disclosures as a mechanism to keep Fannie and Freddie consistent with their Federal charters to stimulate homeownership.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, as we pointed out yesterday, the SCRUB Act requires the commission to identify regulations that should be repealed. The commission focuses on rules and regulations that are out of date, no longer useful, and otherwise unnecessary or obsolete.

As I stated yesterday, no regulations should be exempt from this bill. Not all consumer protection regulations are created equal. If the regulation is important, effective and still relevant, then let it stand. If the regulation is not effective, no longer valuable and unnecessary, then why keep it around?

This amendment is just another wrong-headed carve-out that will end up hurting student loan borrowers more than it could possibly help them.

And for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, everybody wants to see gainful employment for our students, our college students especially.

Those institutions that have preyed on these students also are as a result of a regulatory environment that has allowed that to happen. That same regulatory environment would be under review, under oversight by the SCRUB Act. For those reasons particularly, we need to make sure that we do not have this amendment, but, more importantly, that we do allow for the underlying bill.

For those reasons, again, I urge opposition to this amendment by my colleague.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would exclude from the commission's review regulations under title I, part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended.

ESEA provides financial assistance to local educational agencies and schools with high numbers or high percentages of children from low- income families to help ensure that all children meet challenging State academic standards.

No regulation should be exempt from the review process, especially those regulations that impact low-income students across the country. It is imperative that we have smart, targeted, cost-effective regulations that actually help the people that need the help.

Imposing ineffective regulations on schools and educational agencies cost taxpayers money--this must be given the opportunity for oversight, as is given under the SCRUB Act--and overburden our already exhausted educators, and can cause more harm rather than good.

Why not take a look at these regulations and just consider whether they are working? And, if they are, then let's leave them alone. But if not, then, let's change them there.

There is no reason why we should create, again, a special carve-out from the commission's consideration. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, since 1965, when the ESEA was passed, we have gone from chalkboards to iPads. Things have changed. The regulatory environment has changed.

May I remind my colleagues that, under the SCRUB Act, the bipartisan review committee would make these recommendations for changes in the regulatory scheme to Congress, who would have the final say as to whether any regulations need to be changed.

Again, for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this bill, again, requires the commission to identify regulations which should be repealed. The commission focuses on rules and regulations that are, again, out-of-date, no longer necessary, no longer useful, or otherwise obsolete.

Regulations promulgated under the Clean Air Act need to be examined and updated just as much as any other regulations. Reviewing and revisiting regulations promulgated decades ago allows the opportunity to improve upon existing standards.

According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Environmental Protection Agency regulations cost the public $353 billion a year. Given the high costs associated with EPA regulations, excluding these regulations from this review process just doesn't make any sense. $353 billion--more than one-third of a trillion dollars--needs review.

Importantly, this bill has several significant procedural hurdles to pass before any regulation would be repealed: the commission must determine the regulation is no longer necessary; the commission must recommend repealing the regulation; and, most significantly, Congress would need to vote to get rid of the regulation. No regulation would be repealed without a vote by Congress.

This is reinstating the authority that this body has, and for these foregoing reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this bill, when passed, does nothing to remove any regulation. What it does is exactly what we were elected to do: provide transparency and oversight over existing regulations to determine whether they are necessary or not. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would again urge opposition to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the prime example of why we need the SCRUB Act. ``Federal Management of Programs that Serve Tribes'' was added to the Government Accountability Office biannual high-risk report released earlier this month. The GAO reported: ``For nearly a decade, we, along with inspectors general, special commissions, and others, have reported that federal agencies have ineffectively administered Indian education and health care programs and inefficiently fulfilled their responsibilities for managing the development of Indian energy resources.''

Look, the GAO found numerous challenges, including poor conditions at schools, inadequate healthcare oversight, and mismanagement of energy resources that limit the ability of tribes to create economic benefits and improve the well-being of their communities.

Clearly, the Federal Government is not getting this right, and we need to exercise our oversight. We need more attention to this issue, not less.

Exempting regulations relating to tribal governments is simply wrong. It keeps in place outdated and ineffective regulations that are burdening our tribal governments. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the regulations that we are talking about in the GAO report that are so ineffective, that have been a failure, are those regulations that have been imposed by unelectable bureaucrats in the bureaucracy that we are trying to reach back and gain not only oversight, but transparency as well. The SCRUB Act needs to be there for that particular purpose, and, for those reasons, this amendment should be opposed.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying that my colleague from Maryland, the ranking member of the full committee, has been and continues to be probably one of the strongest advocates for whistleblower protections, and I thank him and laud him for that. But I must disagree with him in regard to this amendment.

No one regulation is the perfect and ideal regulation that will last into perpetuity. All regulations need to be reviewed, and that is what this rule does. The commission focuses on rules and regulations that are out of date, no longer useful, and are otherwise unnecessary or obsolete.

Regulations that were promulgated with the original intent of protecting whistleblowers need updating and consideration as much as any other regulation does. Reviewing and revisiting regulations promulgated decades ago creates the opportunity to improve upon existing standards.

Excluding whistleblower regulations from this exercise means that whistleblowers would lose out on the chance to streamline regulations and reduce burdens that might be harming whistleblowers. In fact, this process could actually help protect whistleblowers in its oversight and transparency.

Importantly, this bill has several significant procedural hurdles to pass before any regulation would be repealed. The commission must determine that the regulation is no longer necessary; the commission would then recommend repealing the regulation; and, again, most significantly, Congress would need to vote on the regulation in order to get rid of it.

Again, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, again, nothing in the SCRUB Act does anything to remove any of the protections that already exist for whistleblowers. This essentially makes it open for review, but, more importantly, as I agree with my colleague from Maryland, we need to protect the whistleblowers. And if it be the focus of Congress to do just that, then we must, irrespective of the SCRUB Act, focus on strengthening those laws that protect our whistleblowers to make our government run more transparently, more effectively, and more efficiently.

Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting because creatively my friend from Maryland is trying to do unsuccessfully what they have done all along unsuccessfully, and that is just create a carve-out of regulations for review by the SCRUB Act.

Now, what regulation is so perfect it should never be reviewed again? None. And that is why the SCRUB Act is so important. You see, this bill went through regular order.

In the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, we went through a markup, and my friends across the aisle had an opportunity to make their amendments. We came to the floor. They had an opportunity to make their amendments. Two were accepted--made it a bipartisan bill.

But, more importantly, let's take the impact of this bill and what it does to our economy. The Small Business Administration says that annually each business must pay $20,000 a year in compliance costs because of our regulatory environment. The Competitive Enterprise Institute says that that is $15,000 per household.

Members, we were elected to be accountable to those who elected us; not to allow some unaccountable, unelectable bureaucracy to make rules and regulations that have filled up 178,000 pages of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Let us do what we were elected to do, and reach back and take that authority that we have given to these regulatory agencies. Let us pass this SCRUB Act so that we will have the opportunity to not only review, but eliminate those regulations that are no longer necessary, inefficient, and ineffective.

Members, I ask for you to oppose this motion and vote for the underlying SCRUB Act and let us regain the authority that the people have given us.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for allowing me this opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

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

You know, some time ago, when I first got involved in this political processing, I made it known that I felt that the silent killer of American business was the regulatory regime that we have in place, where over 50 years this Congress has ceded its authority to unelectable, unaccountable bureaucrats. Today we have 175,000 pages in the Code of Federal Register that is evidence of that. It is time that we, as a Congress, on behalf of our constituency, on behalf of the future well-being of this country, take back that authority with oversight and accountability through this SCRUB Act.

It has been said that there is approximately, on average, $20,000 a year per employee of a manufacturer that is attributable just to compliance with regulation. We need to make sure that we have our manufacturers, our businesses, doing that which they do best within a reasonable regulatory scheme, and that is what this act offers: a reasonable regulatory scheme that allows Congress who has the authority--actually has the only authority--to hold accountable these unelectable bureaucrats. The SCRUB Act will allow us to do that.

It will allow due process through a discovery process. More importantly, the review board, the commission, the five bipartisan members who are appointed by the President must be confirmed by the Senate. This, in and of itself, is a sense of due process, a sense of accountability, and, more importantly, a strong sense of purpose that the American people would want to see this Congress be able to go in and take back the authority that they have delegated--at sometimes recklessly--to these bureaucratic organizations.

We talk about the $30 million. I know the $30 million is always big in any equation that you have, but when you allow the $30 million to be spent over 5 years and you allow that to have the removal of certain regulations, you will pay for this $30 million 10 times over in no time at all.

So it is with a sense of advocacy on behalf of not only congressional authority, but also a sense of advocacy on behalf of American business and the future economic growth of this country, that I ask my colleagues to wholeheartedly support the SCRUB Act.

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

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, although I am not in opposition to the amendment, I do wish to speak in support and further explain my support, because I believe that the gentleman from Virginia offers some very good merit to his amendment.

The amendment clarifies that the commissioners are covered by the Ethics in Government Act, which is in line with current law. Commissioners should be free from financial conflict as much as any other Federal employee should. The Beyer amendment prohibits the appointment of a commissioner to the retrospective regulatory review commission who has been a registered lobbyist in the previous 2 years.

Ensuring commissioners are not lobbyists with financial interests in the commission's work is in line with the commission's goal of identifying wasteful or unfair regulations. The 2-year ban allows genuine experts with some past lobbying experience to contribute their knowledge to the commission. This provision is very similar to the President's 2-year ban on former lobbyists working in the administration.

For those reasons, I do support the amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chair, this commission that we have here in the SCRUB Act is established to clear out old and unnecessary regulations. It currently requires the commission to consider whether the rule could be repealed without significant adverse effects, whether the rule is unnecessary, whether the costs are justified by the benefits, and certain other criteria.

I think that the consideration of public health certainly fits within whether the rule would have significant adverse effects, whether it is necessary, and whether the benefits justify the cost. Health, safety, and welfare of the American people is foremost to what we do, and I laud my colleague from California for filing this amendment.

This amendment clarifies that the commission should consider the impact on public health of repealing any regulation. I think that, again, my colleague from California gave fine examples of that particular balance.

We agree that we want regulations that are necessary to protect public health. I am excited to see one of my Democratic colleagues working with us to improve regulatory reform legislation. I look forward to future opportunities to continue this work.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the commission is permitted, under this bill, to spend $30 million over 5 years for administrative purposes. By removing the funding in this amendment, the commission will not be able to hire staff, rent office space, establish the public website as required in the bill, or hold the public meetings, which are also required in the bill. This amendment essentially guts the bill.

The commission established under this bill has a momentous job ahead of it. The Code of Federal Regulations totals more than 178,000 pages. This is approximately 36,000 pages of regulations for review every year of the 5 years the commission has to conduct its work.

But it is not just simply reading the pages. There is work behind understanding whether the regulations are effective. There is outreach and public hearings to understand how the regulations are or aren't effective.

I believe the savings from eliminating unnecessary costs and the improved efficiency from weeding out unneeded regulations will far outweigh the resources applied to this effort.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute estimates that regulations impose a cost on the economy of $1.8 trillion. Who bears that cost but the consumers? This amendment would gut the bill. $30 million over 5 years is more than reasonable, considering the economic impact that these regulations have had on the American business and the American economy. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this bill requires the commission to identify regulations that should be repealed. These are all regulations under the bill. While I appreciate my colleague from California's efforts in his amendment, I just cannot support it.

The commission focuses on rules and regulations that are out of date, no longer useful, and otherwise unnecessary or obsolete. No regulations should be exempt from this bill.

Ensuring the physical and cybersecurity of the bulk power system is absolutely important and critical. We should know whether or not the existing regulations are effective and are useful.

This amendment would prevent the commission from reviewing these important regulations and ensuring that they are current and effective.

I would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, the bill requires the commission to identify regulations--all regulations--which should be repealed. The commission focuses on rules and regulations that are out of date, no longer useful, and otherwise unnecessary or obsolete. Again, no regulations should be exempt from this bill.

Ensuring the safety of the National Airspace System is critically important. We should know whether or not the existing regulations are effective and useful. This amendment would prevent the commission from reviewing these very important regulations and ensuring that they are not only current but also effective.

I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the argument about an unelected commission, I must say that these regulations are already being promulgated by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.

Again, if we are going to have to have a review--an oversight--of our regulatory scheme, we should not exempt any regulations. I, therefore, would submit that this amendment would do just that. It would create a slippery slope of exceptions. Therefore, I, again, would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, everyone agrees that airport noise is very annoying.

Effective regulations that protect our communities from unwarranted noise are very important. However, regulations that impose excessive and costly restrictions that are ineffective at achieving their goals do not help anyone.

Why not take a look at these regulations and just consider whether they are working?

If they are, then the regulation stays in place and we continue to protect our communities from unwarranted noise. If those regulations are not working, then we repeal them and put in regulations that achieve the goals and reduce costs.

There is no reason why we should create special carve-outs from the commission's consideration.

For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will tell you that regulations are regulations. They need to be reviewed at every level. What the SCRUB Act offers is that opportunity. What this amendment does is limit that ability.

For those reasons, I, again, urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize American Heart Month and the need to encourage and support one another to be proactive in preventative heart care.

I would like to thank President Trump for honoring the tradition of dedicating February as American Heart Month so that we may continue our fight against heart disease and heart defects as a nation.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. Every year, one in four deaths is caused by heart disease, and approximately 40,000 babies are born in the U.S. with a congenital heart defect, including myself.

The good news is that heart disease can often be detected earlier and even prevented when we are proactive, make healthy choices, manage our health conditions, and keep up with our annual physicals.

Communities, health professionals, and families can work together to create opportunities for people to make healthier life choices and to lessen the stigma and fear of simply going to the doctor.

As this is American Heart Month, I encourage all Americans to use this month to raise awareness about heart disease and heart defects, and how we can prevent, treat, and cope with them, both at home and throughout our communities.

Through the support of my family and friends, the guidance of my doctors, and the grace of God, I am blessed to be standing here to support those across our Nation who are affected in some way by heart disease and heart defects. My prayers and thoughts go out to every one of you.

I ask my colleagues to join me in promoting American Heart Month so that we can all help save precious lives.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

I rise today in support of my good friend from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner's) legislation, H.R. 78, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act.

The American people have grown tired of unaccountable and unelected Washington bureaucrats bringing forward burdensome regulations without fully considering the effect on families in our districts.

This simple and straightforward legislation would enact a statutory requirement for the SEC to outline enhanced economic analysis requirements for any new regulations before they can be enacted. It also requires a review of existing regulations to determine if they are unduly burdensome or duplicative.

Accountability. The impact of burdensome regulations that lack a thorough vetting by the SEC can have an

untold effect across our entire economy.

Court cases, Government Accountability Office reports, and the SEC's own Office of Inspector General have raised important questions and recommended improvements to various components of the SEC's economic analysis in its rulemaking.

This legislation would go further by prohibiting the SEC from issuing a rule when it cannot make a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify the cost of the regulation. Logic and reason.

In closing, I support this good-government, commonsense legislation introduced by Chair Wagner. The SEC Regulatory Accountability Act will take an important step in preventing the SEC from implementing a regulation before understanding its full impact on our economy and on the families in our congressional districts and across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding.

I rise today to support this rule and to express my strong disapproval of President Obama and his administration's refusal to veto the anti-Israel resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council on December 23, 2016.

Since its establishment, Israel has worked tirelessly to forge peace with its neighbors. They have sought neither violence nor conflict. In fact, the territories discussed in the misguided U.N. resolution were areas Israel gained in self-defense during the 1967 Six-Day War. These areas include the Old City, with the Temple Mount and Western Wall, areas that, thousands of years ago, were the origin of the Israeli culture, heritage, and religion.

Israel did not seek to take this land. Rather, when threatened by their Arab neighbors in 1967, they were forced to act in self-defense and repel these attacks. Since that time, Israel has successfully reached peaceful agreements with many of the Arab countries who, at that time, sought to wipe them off the map.

Israel is the only thriving democracy in the Middle East who practices and protects human rights regardless of ethnicity, gender, religion, or citizenship. Additionally, the State of Israel has been committed to implementing initiatives to promote economic growth in the region, including creating opportunities for Palestinians and others. Israel is a shining example of taking care of those who are around them, even as they face constant threat of violence and terrorist attacks.

I have been appalled over what has taken place under the direction of President Obama and Secretary Kerry and others within the administration. In response, I also introduced a resolution condemning these intolerable actions. By failing to direct the United States to veto the one-sided, anti-Israel U.N. Security Council resolution, the President turned his back on Israel and, as a result, turned his back on America.

The anti-Israel resolution adopted by the U.N. Security Council threatens peace and stability in the Middle East. It will most likely incentivize further violence and radical boycotts.

While President Obama and Secretary Kerry's long list of foreign policy failures has been well-documented over the years, none to date have been this deliberate and calculated. That is why I have come to the floor to support Chairman Royce's bipartisan resolution.

As Republicans and Democrats alike have expressed their contempt for the President's lack of action, I look forward to working with my colleagues and President-elect Trump in correcting President Obama's anti-Israeli tactics as we work to form a stronger bond with Israel and as we work to promote peace in the Middle East.