Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in honor of America's heroic veterans, the Honor Flight Network conducts two annual Honor Flight ceremonies to Washington, D.C. to give our nation's heroes a day to visit and reflect at their war memorials. On September 17, 2017, Honor Flight Northern Colorado held its 19th Honor Flight that gave many of our courageous veterans this extraordinary opportunity. I am pleased to recognize the September 17, 2017 Honor Flight honoring World War II, Korean War, and Vietnam War veterans of Northern Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, those who participated in this flight are as follows:

World War II: Carl Curtis, Eugene Doty, Ben Gutfelder, Fred Heinze, James Ingram, Elwood Johnsen, George Kunz, Stuart Mundt, Merwin Waterman.

Korean War: John Anderson, Ralph Ashton, William Bohn, Gerald Briggs, Joseph Carney, Dale Doty, Ernest Garcia, Charles Gustafson, Fred Hagen, Richard Hornung, Phillip Kaspar, Dixon King, George Lanes, John Lark, Don Moritz, August Roemer, Melvin Salter, Paul Salvador, Arlen Sarian, Walter Slocum Jr., Arthur Smith, Willard Unrein, Robert Wallen, William Webster, Reginald Willcox.

Vietnam War: Edward Aitken, Charles Ashbaugh, Harry Ashbaugh, Frank Atwood, Thomas Barker, Lanny Benninger, Eldredge Blain, William Bjorlin, Leslie Bums, Joel Champion, James Chopp, Willis Corcoran, William Damewood, Anson Derby, Clarence Dye, Clifford Echols, Roy Echols, David Fanning, Wesley Feeney Jr., Budd Finch Jr., Errol Ford, Michael Gail, Alonzo Garza, Dennis Gordon, Eldon Harrell, Larry Hartman, Allan Havens, John Hendrickson, Nicholas Herrera, Donald Hull, Raymond Johnson, John Kask, Paul Kommueller, Charles Klutsch, Joseph Long, Michael Long, Edward Longhini, Joseph Maes, Loren Maes, Gary Malara, David Mathis, Michael McClure, Jerry McDaniel, Mark McKinley, Oscar Metzgar, Steven Moskowitz, Allan Nelson, Robert Nelson, Russell Ness, Paul Nobles, Sven Nylander, Max Oesterle, Dale Olson, David Painter, Thomas Parker, Raymond Patch, Rudolf Peralez, Robert Perlenfien, John Perrine, Wayne Peterson, Louis Price, Jerry Purdy, Ernie Pyle, Ronald Ramirez, Richard Reininger, Frank Ross, Joe Roybal, John Ryan, Genaro Salazar, Raymond Sautter, Robert Schawo, Rudy Schenk, Larry Schwindt, Robert Shaeffer, Dan Shaffer, Roger Smith, Daniel Sorensen, Andrew Stephenson, Marjorie Stephenson, Walter Stolpa Jr., Dwight Strandberg, Barton Thompson, Norman Toman, Richard Tompkins, Samuel Trujillo, Terrence Urista, Myron Wagner, James Wetzler, Charles Winkleman.

It is my distinct pleasure as the U.S. Representative of the 4th District of Colorado to recognize the honor, courage, and sacrifice of these heroes, along with all members of America's Armed Forces. I thank them for their dedication and service to this nation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for the time today to talk about this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on behalf of the Political Appointee Burrowing Prevention Act. This important legislation addresses a problem affecting our Federal workforce.

Our Federal civil service hiring process is supposed to be a competitive, merit-based system where the best and brightest individuals are considered based on their qualifications and ability to do their job, not because of their political connections. However, we have seen a concerning trend where excepted service employees, specifically political appointees, are converted into high-paying, lifelong civil service positions, bypassing the normal competitive hiring process.

This process, also known as ``burrowing,'' defeats the purpose of having a nonpartisan, merit-based civil service. In fact, the Government Accountability Office reports that the Obama administration converted 78 political appointments into career positions, while the Bush administration allowed 135 political appointees to burrow into career positions.

This trend raises significant concerns that individuals who were not chosen based solely on their merits may, at best, not be the most qualified candidate for the job, or, at worst, may not be willing to properly execute the law under a new administration.

Political appointees are supposed to serve their appointing President's agenda for a temporary period of time. Part of their duty to the Nation is to know when it is time to step down from their position of power.

Congress must act to ensure this principle is upheld and to protect the independence of our merit-based civil service. That is why I, along with my friend and colleague, Representative Ted Lieu, have offered an equitable solution to ensure this problem is stopped in its tracks.

Our bill, the Political Appointee Burrowing Prevention Act, places a 2-year ban on political appointees being hired for any job in the civil service after they depart a political position.

Additionally, the bill ensures that after the 2-year ban is completed, the head of the agency seeking to employ the individual must submit a written request to OPM detailing why hiring a former appointee is necessary to the agency's mission.

Furthermore, OPM is instructed to deny the application unless the agency head can prove why it is necessary to hire this individual instead of an applicant from the merit-based hiring pool.

This commonsense bill ensures that our Federal workforce is filled with career civil servants who are the most qualified, not the most politically connected.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation that ensures our Federal workforce is being selected by merit, not by political patronage.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 747 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Just 3 weeks ago, we hosted a small lender in my district office who was being hindered in his efforts to serve home buyers in eastern Colorado. Why? Washington, in its unyielding effort to regulate every decision of Americans, lumped this lender into a broader regulation that came out of the housing crisis 10 years ago. This isn't some theoretical exercise. These regulations have real impact on Coloradans.

The last time I was on the floor debating these issues, I discussed the affordable housing situation in Colorado. Without completely recounting that debate, I want to reiterate the basic facts.

From 2009 to 2016, Colorado had a net increase of 600,000 people. In that same time, housing costs skyrocketed by more than 57 percent.

Since 2016, our growth has begun to fall off considerably. When The Denver Post researched why a State with a high quality of life and decades more growth potential had a dramatically slowing growth rate, they found that a substantial part of it had to do with rising housing costs.

We must reconsider our Washington-knows-best regulatory approach. We here in Washington can't possibly know what is the best for a potential home buyer in Trinidad or Las Animas or Fort Morgan or Greeley or Castle Rock, Colorado.

I, for one, am tired of the arrogance of Washington telling us in eastern Colorado which banks we can and can't use to finance our mortgages. It is time that we bring financial accountability to the place that needs it most: Washington.

That is what these two financial bills do. They return power to the American people. They reduce unnecessary regulations on small community banks and credit unions, thereby freeing up capital that small businesses and employers can access to create new jobs. They make commonsense changes to Federal laws so that regulators have to routinely review their regulations to ensure that the regulations are not overly burdensome.

Eastern Coloradans are frustrated with the Washington-knows-best mindset of their government, and I am listening to them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), a member of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to close debate by reviewing a few basic truths.

In the aftermath of the financial meltdown last decade, Washington embarked on a campaign to reduce the power of Wall Street over Americans. In typical Washington fashion, we, instead, got a monstrosity of a new regulatory infrastructure that has all but snuffed out Main Street lenders. The plan to reduce Wall Street's influence actually increased it.

This House--not the Senate, because the Senate has refused to act-- listened to the American people and passed the Financial CHOICE Act. Instead of embarking on a campaign that hurt American people and propped up Wall Street, we set out with one goal: increase the financial freedom of Americans.

And we did that. We passed a bill that would make substantive changes to our financial regulations to the betterment of Americans.

These bills before us today continue on that path. They recognize that this government should work for all Americans, not just those who can afford political connections.

Eastern Coloradans should know that I serve them and them alone. As long as I have this responsibility to represent them, I will work to reduce Washington's role in their life.

I thank Chairman Hensarling for his leadership on the Financial CHOICE Act and these bills. I hope that he will remain engaged in this effort as he commences the next chapter in his life at the end of this Congress.

I thank Chairman Sessions for his leadership in bringing this debate to the floor today.

We must never yield in putting Americans first in our public policy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 725 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. This rule makes in order two bills reported favorably by the Committee on Financial Services and one bill reported favorably by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I just want to take a moment at the beginning to point out that there are no amendments made in order by this rule because there were no amendments offered to any of these bills.

Both of the Financial Services bills were the subject of hearings in the committee last year. Both bills were reported out of committee with bipartisan support of 75 percent or more of the committee members.

The Energy and Commerce bill was reported favorably by the committee with a large bipartisan vote of 39-14.

The rule also provides us with the necessary tools to ensure that we can bring government funding measures to the floor quickly to prevent a government shutdown.

Mr. Speaker, we have three bills before us today. Each of these bills deals with one underlying problem: Washington overregulation. That is it. These are not bills protecting Americans from some foreign hostile force. These are bills protecting Americans from the overreach of their own government.

It is a sad time in which we find ourselves when we must dedicate legislative effort to undoing the harmful effects of the American government on the American people.

Mr. Speaker, in 2013, the CFPB issued its rule commonly referred to as the qualified mortgage rule, or the QM rule. The QM rule requires creditors to make a good faith effort to determine a customer's ability to repay a loan if the loan is secured by a home. However, the rule creates a legal safe harbor from liability under the rule for qualified mortgages.

One aspect of a qualified mortgage is that it cannot have total points and fees exceeding 3 percent of the total loan amount if the loan amount is at least $100,000. However, some fees may be excluded from the points and fees cap if they are reasonable and the lender or any affiliate of the lender receives no compensation from the service.

This all sounds well and good. We certainly don't want predatory lending institutions referring business to themselves just to pad their bottom line at the expense of unsuspecting borrowers.

But this is a great example of how massive, one-size-fits-all Washington regulation often ends up hurting Americans. The result of the points and fees cap within the QM rule has been to place low- and moderate-income borrowers in a position where they end up spending more money to secure a loan.

Mr. Speaker, my home State of Colorado has been experiencing explosive population growth over the past decade and longer. Between 2009 and 2016, we added a net increase of more than 600,000 people. But home prices also increased significantly over that time, more than 57 percent.

In 2016, according to The Denver Post, we had the lowest growth we have experienced in many years at only a 30,000-person net increase. In part, the slowing growth rate has to do with rising housing costs. This is why it is vitally important that many first-time homeowners and others have access to affordable loans. Government regulation should not be a part of driving up housing costs.

Why does this happen? Why does a Federal regulation result in hurting the very people it is intended to help?

It is simple: Washington regulators cannot take into account the unique circumstances of each individual American. This is a crucial difference between the common sense of Americans across this land and the self-importance of some here in D.C.

Many in D.C. believe firmly that the Federal Government is able to protect every American from every bad experience. They express enormous faith in so-called experts who believe they can effectively govern from afar the lives of Americans.

I reject this notion. I reject the belief that a class of enlightened experts and bureaucrats in Washington can better run the lives of individuals. That philosophy deprives Americans of the freedom to make their own choices. When Washington's power expands, individual liberty retreats. So we have to have bills like the ones before us today.

The Dodd-Frank financial regulatory bill required the CFPB to issue the QM rule. The QM rule was supposed to help low- to moderate-income borrowers save money, but, instead, the QM rule created a situation where low- and moderate-income borrowers cannot take advantage of discounted services offered by their lender.

The rule forces these borrowers to secure these services from third parties which almost always charge more than the lenders would charge for the same services. The negative impact of this rule is so abundantly clear that half of the committee's Democrats voted with all of the Republicans in support of fixing this provision of Dodd-Frank.

Passing this bill will not magically cause housing in Colorado to become more affordable, but it will eliminate an unnecessary regulation that needlessly drives up borrowing costs.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to rolling back Dodd-Frank regulations, the second Financial Services bill that we have before us today protects the ability of small banks to issue debt and raise capital.

The Federal Reserve generally discourages bank holding companies from using debt to finance acquisitions, particularly the purchasing of banks. However, the Federal Reserve carved out certain small bank holding companies.

In order to be considered a small bank holding company, these companies had an asset cap of $150 million. By 2015, the cap had been increased to $1 billion. The bill before us today increases the cap to $3 billion.

As we have heard last night during testimony at the Rules Committee, there is no science or data behind the level of the cap. Think about that for a second. The government has established a cap that has a negative impact on our community banks, and the cap has no basis in anything, not science, not data, not historical financial patterns, nothing. The cap is simply a whim of Washington.

Mr. Speaker, this is absurd. It is time we allow our community banks to have an avenue to continue being locally owned and based in our communities rather than being bought out by Wall Street.

Today we have two Financial Services bills before us that reduce regulations and allow Coloradans and all Americans greater freedom in the choice of banking services. I urge support of these two bills.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to my friend from Florida that we were both here on the floor as the House of Representatives passed all 12 appropriations bills in early September.

As we look across to the other side of the Capitol, not much work has been done on those appropriations bills since they left the House and traveled to the Senate.

The answer to the continuing problem that we have with continuing resolutions is to find Members of the Senate who are willing to work as hard as the House has and pass appropriations bills and fund the government.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be happening right now, and I hope we do pass a continuing resolution, I hope we do fund the military, and I hope we give some more stability to this government.

But the finger pointing in this case I don't think is warranted in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to turn now to the final bill made in order under this rule, the Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act.

Mr. Speaker, in 2016, I had the privilege to visit with one of my constituents, Lamont Muchmore. Lamont owns a Papa John's pizza franchise and invited me to come to his restaurant. He even taught me how to throw, or how to toss--maybe throw, maybe toss--a pizza. It was a great experience. I got to meet members of his team and hear about their professional goals. I am happy to say that the American Dream is alive within the hearts of the people of Colorado.

However, my visit with Lamont was not without concern. You see, recently, Washington had decided to push a hugely disruptive regulation on our food service industry.

In the interest of ensuring Americans had information on their food choices, Washington crafted a one-size-fits-all mandate that every menu item be labeled with its nutritional content.

As someone who has become extremely aware of the quality of foods that I consume, I certainly understand the do-good intentions behind this kind of regulation. But the impact on businesses like Lamont's has been substantial. In fact, some businesses have no realistic way of complying with the rules.

Further, the law that put these regulations in place, ObamaCare, placed criminal penalties on those who fail to comply. How ridiculous is that? If you mislabel or fail to properly label the calorie count on a menu item, you could be fined and go to jail.

The bill before us today rectifies some of the harm done by this rule. The bill allows multiple avenues for businesses such as Lamont's pizza restaurant to comply with menu labeling requirements in the most cost-effective manner possible.

While I don't believe the Federal Government needs to require the calorie count of a food item on a menu in Colorado, this bill offers a compromise. Americans will still have access to nutrition information about the food they are purchasing, while businesses will be able to provide a variety of prepared and local foods without fear of major penalties if one serving happens to be slightly different in its calorie count than the last serving.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how frustrating it is to visit with Coloradans who are working hard to build their businesses, provide for their families and community, and employ people, only to be met with the constant headwind that our Federal Government blows in their faces through its Washington-knows-best regulatory schemes. Washington should get out of the way and let Americans do what we do best: cultivate our resources for the good of our family and neighbors.

I think often of Coloradans like Lamont. It is men and women like him all across this great land that are doing the important work. I am committed to ensuring that this Federal Government stops jeopardizing their hard-won success, and that Washington's so-called experts give honor where it is due: to the hardworking American people.

I thank Lamont for taking the time out of his day to visit with me. This bill answers the needs of his team, and I urge its passage.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

He does.

I don't believe he owns more than 20.

I will pass that information on to Lamont, although I disagree with your reading.

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

Washington is out of step with the vast majority of the American people. It is true that we often do work here that moves our country forward, that protects this great land, but it is also true that there is a competing worldview in this City which seeks to rule over the American people.

In Colorado, we have experienced the negative effects of overreach by the Federal Government.

How is it that regulators living 1,700 miles away from us believe they can create rules that take into account our needs and that respect our way of life?

It is just not possible.

Washington is good at stamping out large Federal programs. The problem is that it usually stamps out individual liberty in the process. This City must stop telling the people of Colorado how to live every detail of their lives. Washington's so-called experts must stop burying Colorado businessmen and -women under piles of rules.

If we truly free our people to grow and pursue their hopes and dreams, we will experience a renaissance of growth unmatched in our history. This Congress has done good work in rolling back the strong arm of the Federal Government, but there is more work to do.

These bills before us continue what should be a never-ending pursuit of giving back to the people their personal liberty which has been confiscated by overreaching Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hensarling and Chairman Walden for their work on these bills. I thank Chairman Sessions for bringing these bills to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bills and the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 693 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

This rule makes in order two bills reported favorably by the Committee on Financial Services. In addition, the rule makes in order a majority of the amendments submitted.

These bills were the subject of hearings in the Financial Services Committee, and both were marked up and reported favorably to the House. Both bills received bipartisan support in the committee, and I expect that we will see bipartisan support for both bills on the floor this week.

Mr. Speaker, formed in 1944, the World Bank is the oldest multilateral development bank. As a post-World War II effort of international cooperation, the goal of the World Bank was to fund reconstruction efforts in war-torn nations.

In 1960, the United States pushed for the creation of the International Development Association within the World Bank. Where the original World Bank division funded middle-income countries, the IDA was created to make concessional loans; that is, loans with low interest rates and long repayment periods to the world's poorest countries.

The number of countries served by the IDA currently stands at 75. The IDA is typically the single largest source of funding for critical social programs in these low-income countries. However, the bill before us reduces the United States' contribution to the IDA.

The IDA is funded through replenishments by donor countries. We are currently in the 18th replenishment period, known as IDA-18. The bill reduces the United States' contribution in IDA-18 by 15 percent. Further, the bill requires that the Treasury Department certify that the World Bank reform its practices and lending controls in relation to the IDA.

A 2016 report commissioned by the World Bank reveals serious problems with one particular IDA project in Uganda. While IDA's role is to reduce inequality and support the development of civil society, the report outlines numerous failures to achieve these objectives on the part of the IDA.

The report details how IDA financing of a project in Uganda led to systemic spreading of HIV/AIDS, sexual abuse of minors, child labor, retaliation against local citizens, gender-based violence, and other gross abuses of powerless Ugandans. While the IDA took several steps, including withdrawing some loans from this particular project, there is much concern that this project is indicative of many others.

The House Committee on Financial Services held a hearing at which testimony was received from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists indicating that governments that allow or participate in the abuse of their citizens and the subjugation of the poor have not been turned away by the World Bank.

The testimony reads in part: ``We found instead that the bank repeatedly funded governments that not only failed to adequately resettle communities, but in some cases were accused of human rights abuses such as rape, murder, and violent evictions associated with bank projects. We found in several cases that the World Bank continued to bankroll these borrowers

even after evidence of these abuses came to light.''

Mr. Speaker, the IDA has a quality control problem, and we are right in reducing their funding.

As if the abuse of citizens by corrupt governments is not enough, the committee has also uncovered evidence that the World Bank has serious internal problems as well.

According to the World Bank's Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank staff has long been incentivized to simply get more loans out the door without any incentive to ensure the quality of the projects. This has been a longstanding trend documented since the early 1990s.

But it is not just perverse incentives. The World Bank has not focused enough on rigidly guarding itself against internal corruption. A professor from Caltech testified before the committee that it was common for World Bank projects to be captured by corrupt governments and that World Bank staff try to suppress corruption investigations.

She said: ``Corruption investigations can shut down projects and derail careers. They are also inconvenient for senior management in the bank who are balancing delicate relationships with their country clients.''

Due to these problems, the underlying bill protects American taxpayers by withholding funding from the World Bank until these deficiencies are fixed.

Mr. Speaker, not only should we be holding international organizations accountable, we should also be holding our own government accountable, and the second bill made in order under this rule does just that.

In 2011, Dodd-Frank transferred to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regulatory authority over home mortgages. Since then, CFPB has made information reporting by lenders more extensive.

The impact of these increased regulations has led to greater costs to lenders. Consequently, smaller lenders have had to pass on these costs directly to potential borrowers. This has reduced access to affordable credit to borrowers who would typically seek out smaller lending institutions.

The underlying bill is simple: exempt small lenders from CFPB's onerous reporting requirements.

Under the leadership of Chairman Hensarling, House Republicans have consistently put forward a plan to reform the CFPB. However, until we can pass broader reforms, we should do everything we can to protect Americans from harmful regulations pushed on them by the CFPB.

Today, we have two bills before us that hold powerful organizations accountable to American taxpayers.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind my friend from Colorado that the House did pass the Children's Health Insurance Program bill in November. We did send it to the Senate. Perhaps if he could talk to the leadership in his party over in the Senate, we could get that bill passed in the Senate instead of blocked, and we could deal with a very important issue, an issue in Colorado that is absolutely essential, because the money is running out in Colorado, one of the few States where it is even more important than many of the other States.

I appreciate my colleague's concern on this issue. I share his concern. The House acted responsibly in a broad, bipartisan bill. Hopefully, we can get our friends over in the Senate to get more done.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), my good friend and the sponsor of one of the bills today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), chair of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.

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

Overlooking corruption and abuse is unacceptable in any governing body, particularly one funded by the United States.

It is clear that serious reforms and oversight are needed at the World Bank. The International Development Association has strayed from its mission to help combat inequality around the world.

The World Bank Accountability Act puts our international partners on notice that the United States is not simply going to stand by and allow abuses to continue.

And while we stand up for the underprivileged around the world, we also must ensure that every American has equal access to our own financial institutions.

The Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act ensures that CFPB regulations do not shut out certain groups of Americans.

I thank Chairman Hensarling for putting these bills forward. I thank my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee, who have joined me on the floor today to make the case for these efforts. I thank Chairman Sessions for his leadership on the Rules Committee and for providing the debate on these issues today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the rule and supporting the underlying bills. We must ensure that American taxpayer money is not spent on corrupt regimes and that all Americans have access to financing here in the U.S.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the important role Kazakhstan plays in ensuring regional and global security.

Since declaring its independence from the former Soviet Union in 1991, Kazakhstan has shown its leadership in nuclear disarmament by working with the United States to eliminate regional nuclear weapons stockpiles. From the closure of the Semipalatinsk Test Site in 1991 to the opening of Kazakhstan's Nuclear Security Training Center in 2017, the country has demonstrated its leadership in strengthening international security through promoting non-proliferation in the region.

Kazakhstan's commitment to nuclear security extends past non- proliferation, as the country also promotes safe nuclear power to support the needs of the international community. The U.S. recently supported Kazakhstan's offer to host the world's first low-enriched uranium bank, which will help to guarantee that all nations have an energy source for peaceful civilian nuclear power. Affordable energy is a prerequisite for modernization in Central Asia, and future access

to safe energy sources will help promote stability, development, and prosperity in the region.

Kazakhstan has also been a strong U.S. partner in our efforts to combat terrorism and extremism in the region--particularly in Afghanistan. Under the leadership of President Nazarbayev, Kazakhstan has continued to provide indispensable aid to U.S. troops in Afghanistan. They have not only helped assist the Afghan National Security Forces to promote security and stability, but have also contributed to the Northern Distribution Network. I look forward to President Nazarbayev's visit to the United States and a healthy exchange of ideas about how our government can work with Kazakhstan in promoting human rights and the rule of law.

At a time when the world is increasingly unstable due to the rise of non-state actors and conflicts across the Middle East, Kazakhstan has proven itself as a reliable U.S. partner in the region--one we can count on to advance our shared goals. As Kazakhstan serves on the United Nations Security Council, it is my belief that there is a bright future ahead for our collaboration in advancing peace and security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the heroism and bravery of Douglas County Sheriff's Deputy Zackari Parrish.

I attended Deputy Parrish's funeral this past Friday and heard what a great husband, father, son, and law enforcement officer he was. He was a father of two young daughters; a husband to his wife, Gracie; a son to his loving parents; and a colleague to many of the Douglas County Sheriff's Office.

Zackari lost his life 10 days ago, responding to a domestic disturbance call in Highlands Ranch, Colorado. Sergeant David Buyers spoke of Zackari's bravery that day, saying that he didn't flinch, he didn't back down, he didn't hesitate. But he also did everything in his power, according to the sheriff, to talk down the gunman.

Sadly, we can't always win the battles against evil, and on that day, Zackari lost. But a lost battle is not a lost war. Zackari knew he fought in a war to defend the innocent and to stand up for good.

It is an honor to speak about a hero. We have the chance to honor one of those people who devoted their life to others. People like Zackari remind us that our world is not lost, evil will not win the day, and we can give more to this world than we take from it.

Zackari is a hero for the people of Douglas County, Colorado, his fellow sheriff's deputies, and the State of Colorado. I pray for his family, friends, and fellow deputies as they charge ahead in life without their loved one. I pray that God will give them peace in this time and that God will be glorified even in the midst of this horrible trial. I pray for the other law enforcement members, the other heroes wounded that day, as well: Michael Doyle, Taylor Davis, Jeff Pelle, and Thomas O'Donnell.

We can never repay their sacrifices for our community. We can only commit ourselves to never forget the cost they willingly paid for us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, Representative Jody Hice, for the opportunity to speak this evening on such an important issue.

We are here today to discuss the recent revelations that the Obama administration, in their pursuit of the Iran deal, blocked important efforts by U.S. law enforcement officials to fight the terrorist organization Hezbollah.

The past administration's treatment of Iran reveals an imprudent and negligent approach to American foreign policy that must never be repeated. We see in their actions, at best, an incompetence born of a lack of clarity and information and, at worst, an administration determined to create a false foreign policy legacy so that America's

best interests were thrown to the wayside.

In a recent report from Politico mentioned by some of my colleagues already, we have learned that the Obama administration allegedly blocked efforts by U.S. law enforcement officials to fight Hezbollah's transnational drug and weapons trafficking operations.

Hezbollah, Iran's terrorist proxy organization, has also become one of the world's most powerful and dangerous criminal organizations, receiving over $1 billion every year from their illicit activities. We have learned that, through an expansive criminal trafficking network, they funnel cocaine throughout the Middle East, Europe, Africa, Latin America, and the United States.

It has also come to light that Hezbollah launders millions of dollars through schemes involving used car purchases in the United States, and, ultimately, the money earned through these activities can be used for violent terrorist activities aimed at spreading fear and pain throughout the world.

Politico quoted the following from a confidential DEA report on Hezbollah's criminal activities: Hezbollah ``has leveraged relationships with corrupt foreign government officials and transnational criminal actors . . . creating a network that can be utilized to move metric ton quantities of cocaine, launder drug proceeds on a global scale, and procure weapons and precursors for explosives.''

It ``has at its disposal one of the most capable networks of actors coalescing elements of transnational organized crime with terrorism in the world.''

The DEA's acting deputy administrator in 2016 stated that Hezbollah's criminal operations ``provide a revenue and weapons stream for an international terrorist organization responsible for devastating terror attacks around the world.''

Certainly, an organization like that deserves America's utmost scrutiny; and for years, the men and women of the Drug Enforcement Administration's Project Cassandra poured their lives into investigating Hezbollah's criminal activities. These agents tracked financial transactions, cultivated sources, and trailed operatives. But, in several cases, when the DEA asked for prosecutions, arrests, or sanctions, President Obama's Department of Justice delayed or denied their requests. The State Department also reportedly declined to demand the extradition of important suspects who could have aided the investigation and spearheaded the downfall of this international operation.

Unfortunately, thanks to multiple sources involved in the matter now coming forward, we have learned that the Obama administration likely stalled the Hezbollah investigations and prosecutions in order to keep Iran happy and nuclear deal talks on the table. If the DEA rocked the boat by arresting and charging key members of Hezbollah's drug and weapons trafficking operations, then Iran might walk away from the negotiating table.

This thinking reveals a fundamental blindness to reality. Hezbollah is funded by Iran. Hezbollah is Iran. While negotiating with Iran, the former administration turned a blind eye to Hezbollah's extensive criminal activities that were only worsening the drug crisis here in the United States and feeding weapons to terrorists in the Middle East region.

American foreign policy can be pragmatic, but this was not pragmatism. This was foolishness. U.S. foreign policymakers traded an end to Iran's nuclear program for the protection of Iran's terrorist program. And even then, we can't even trust Iran to abide by the agreement meant to end their nuclear program.

So we are left with a bad deal. I have said it many times before. But now we know the deal is even worse than we suspected. Aside from just delivering pallets of cash to Iran, aside from just freeing billions in frozen assets, aside from just lifting important sanctions, we are also giving a transnational criminal organization and terrorist network free rein over the world.

We are here today to affirm to the world that Iran and its affiliated terrorist organization, Hezbollah, are enemies of the free world.

We should never negotiate with terrorists. I urge President Trump and America's law enforcement community to once again turn its attention to Hezbollah. This terrorist organization has spread its evil influence throughout the world, and we have a duty to fight it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, for this opportunity today, and I thank him for bringing this issue up and shining some light on this important subject.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 658 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

This rule provides for consideration of two bills dealing with Iran and its continued support of international terrorism. In addition, the rule makes in order all submitted amendments.

These bills were the subject of hearings in the Financial Services Committee and were marked up and reported favorably to the House. Both

bills received bipartisan support in the committee, and I would expect that we will see significant bipartisan support on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that Iran's leaders have a threat to our way of life. We don't have to look any further than Iranian support for lethal attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly through IEDs, to witness Iran's hostility toward us. Going back several decades, Iran has routinely terrorized the Middle East and has sought to export terror worldwide.

Iran's numerous threats to annihilate our friend and ally, Israel, are a steady drumbeat that should continuously remind us of Iran's threat.

In 2001, the Ayatollah Khamenei is quoted as saying: ``It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region.''

In 2002, a leader of Hezbollah, which is a known extension of the Iranian regime, said: ``If Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.''

But lest we think these are the views of the past, the Ayatollah was quoted in 2014 saying that ``this . . . regime of Israel . . . has no cure but to be annihilated.''

And we could go on. The evidence of Iran's intent on the destruction of Israel is nearly endless. Just yesterday, the commander of Iran's revolutionary guards offered to support Palestinians if they choose to stage an armed uprising to take by force Israel's newly recognized capital: Jerusalem.

Any country whose leaders actively support terrorism against Israel and whose leaders take an official position that the nation of Israel should be eliminated from the Earth are, and always must be, a sworn enemy of the United States.

But it is not just Israel. Other Middle Eastern allies in the United States have been the target of Iran's hostility as well. Namely, Saudi Arabia has been increasingly threatened by the Iranian regime.

In 2011, our FBI and DEA agents successfully disrupted a plot by Iran to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the U.S. here in Washington, D.C. The uncovered plot included bombing a restaurant in D.C. at which the Saudi Arabian Ambassador was planning to eat. The bombing would almost certainly have killed innocent Americans as well.

The list could go on.

Iran has fomented unrest in Iraq, has sought to subject Sunni Muslims to Shiite militias, has supplied the Syrian regime in its years-long civil war, has supported Hezbollah and Hamas, has flagrantly disregarded international law by building a nuclear program, and has taunted the United States.

Who can forget the image of U.S. Navy sailors, hands behind their heads, forced to kneel under gunpoint on an Iranian military vessel? Or the thinly veiled attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq using proxy militant groups? Or the numerous incidents in the Persian Gulf involving harassment of the U.S. Navy?

Yet, against this backdrop, the United States entered into an agreement with Iran. The agreement, commonly referred to as the ``Iran deal,'' was opposed by a bipartisan majority in the House. It relaxed sanctions on Iran, opened channels for business investment, and allowed Iran a pathway forward on a nuclear bomb.

Further, while having the impact of a treaty between two nations, the Obama administration chose to call the agreement by another name and, in so doing, bypassed the United States Senate. This political commitment by President Obama to Iran is the reason for these two bills today.

The first bill, H.R. 1638, the Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act, targets the finances of Iran's ruling class. Its goal is threefold: One, aid U.S. authorities in their efforts to eliminate money laundering by the Iranian regime; two, expose the sectors of the Iranian economy that are controlled by Iran's rulers; and three, show the Iranian people how their corrupt government accumulates wealth for itself at the expense of the people.

The Iran deal removes sanctions on many of the known corrupt government entities. This bill will provide the transparency necessary to reveal the level of corruption within Iran and to inform Congress and others about how to combat the flow of money to terrorists. It further exposes the ruling class by publishing this information in the most common languages spoken within Iran.

The second bill that will be considered under this rule is H.R. 4324, the Strengthening Oversight of Iran's Access to Finance Act. This bill will instruct the Treasury Department to report on transactions of financial institutions related to the export of aircraft to Iran.

Under the Iran deal, President Obama removed restrictions on the sale of American aircraft to Iran. In 2016, the Treasury Department authorized the export of more than 200 aircraft to Iran Air, Iran's state-owned air carrier. Yet we know that Iran Air has been the transporter of choice for Iran's revolutionary guards as they have ferried weapons systems around the Middle East.

The absurdity of this deal to increase the revolutionary guards' capacity to move weapons is self-evident. The bill before us today will require certification by financiers of the aircraft exportation deals that none of the aircraft exported will be used for terrorism or Iran's weapons of mass destruction program.

Due to Iran Air's continued role in transporting materials used for terrorism, this is one step that we should take to help hold lending institutions accountable for their support of aircraft exports to Iran.

Mr. Speaker, many of us in Congress know how bad the Iran deal was for our security and our allies' security. That is why there was bipartisan opposition to the deal last Congress. While in the end we were unsuccessful in prevailing upon the administration to abandon its bad idea, we should continue to stand in the gap against Iran's ongoing efforts to undermine peace in the Middle East and destroy our friends and, ultimately, the United States.

Today, we have two bills that will help our ongoing efforts to thwart Iran's terrorist ambitions. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and these bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have two witnesses on their way. We started a little bit early. I reserve the balance of time.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the former chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have two more speakers. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), a member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Illicit Finance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just ask, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my family and I sit around the dinner table, my wife, Perry, and my two children, we talk politics, not surprisingly, and there are times where we distinguish good from bad, and we know that Iran is an enemy of the good in this world. It terrorizes the Middle East. It seeks to eliminate Israel. It pursues the destruction of the United States. And yet, for some reason, the prior administration struck a deal with the Iranian regime, the same regime that has American blood on its hands. The two bills before us today begin the difficult work of once again ensuring Iran is stopped in its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and in its support of terrorism.

I thank Chairman Hensarling for bringing these bills forward and for my colleagues from the Financial Services Committee who have joined me on the floor today to make the case for this effort. I thank Chairman Sessions for his leadership on the Rules Committee and for providing the debate on this issue today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the rule, supporting the underlying bills, and putting pressure on Iran to abandon terror and embrace peace.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 609 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. The rule provides 1 hour of debate and makes in order all amendments offered at the Rules Committee.

I want to note that not one amendment to this rule or to this bill was offered by the Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, the Micro Offering Safe Harbor Act is an important step toward helping small businesses grow across our country. Small businesses aren't just about selling a product or providing a service. Entrepreneurs take the risk for a chance to improve their community and their family's livelihood. These individuals employ our friends and families and improve our quality of life. Congress needs to do what we can to help entrepreneurs succeed.

Young businesses need to use their limited capital, time, and resources to grow their business, not fill out bureaucratic paperwork. This problem has only grown worse since Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010.

When Dodd-Frank passed, Congress promised it would protect consumers. But it has only hurt community banks, small businesses, and the middle class. Dodd-Frank's burdensome regulatory regime has caused community banks to disappear across America, making access to capital more difficult for many small businesses.

The House passed the Financial CHOICE Act to repeal and replace Dodd- Frank, but it currently sits untouched in the United States Senate. I hope they will quickly vote to repeal Dodd-Frank and make credit easier to access for Main Street.

But there is more we can do in the people's House to help create new jobs and opportunities. All too often the Federal Government creates regulations that disproportionately hurt small businesses. While a large corporation may have a team of lawyers to comply with these rules, this is rarely the case for a young business. That is why I support this bill.

This bill ends ambiguity in the law by clearly defining a nonpublic offering exemption under the Securities Act. Currently, companies just starting out risk unintentionally violating these laws, which might discourage them from seeking the capital they need to grow. It is common sense to ensure our country's laws are clear and to allow small businesses to operate without fear of accidentally violating the law.

Our economy depends on small businesses and those who put everything on the line to pursue the American Dream. This bill will benefit all of us by helping those individuals grow their businesses and create jobs in their communities. In order to help our small businesses grow and create jobs, we need to pass this rule and pass the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is an important step to improve the American economy. We need to support small businesses and their ability to grow. This will happen if we give the free market the opportunity to work.

We should get bureaucrats out of the way of small-business owners who only want to serve their families and communities. This bill moves us in that direction.

I thank Congressman Tom Emmer for introducing this important bill and for taking the time to come to the floor today. I also thank Chairman Hensarling for his work on these bills as well as the House Financial Services Committee.

Chairman Hensarling recently announced that he will not be seeking reelection to Congress, but we will all remember the great work he has done during his time in D.C. and the important contribution he made to the legislation we are looking at today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I ask them to vote ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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 topic of this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to recognize several distinguished Members of the House for the next hour.

When our constituents show up on the first Tuesday in November to exercise their right of self-governance, they carry with them the dreams of a better Republic.

In 2016, the American people commissioned us with a task. They asked us to fight for jobs. They asked us to fight to fix healthcare. They asked us to roll back regulations. They asked us to secure the free world. They asked us to secure our own borders.

The House of Representatives heard them. We have been busy developing and passing legislation that meaningfully improves the lives of Americans. I commend the Speaker and his leadership in moving these bills through the House.

Unfortunately, much of the House's important work is stalled in the U.S. Senate. It is time the Senate pass important legislation and restore trust in our Republic, because before this week, the House had sent 308 bills to the Senate that are still stalled in that Chamber. This is more than any of the previous four Presidential administrations had stalled at this same time in their first year.

For the record, the House of Representatives in the 115th Congress has also passed more total bills than Houses in any of the last four Presidential administrations at this point. We are at 394 total bills passed.

The dreams of this great Republic cannot be realized by the House alone. The Senate must hear the people and come together around the often bipartisan measures we have been sending to them.

As a way of reminding the Senate, I would like to spend the next hour recognizing Members to discuss some of the important bills passed by the House of Representatives that now sit motionless in the U.S. Senate.

I am thankful for my colleagues who are joining me this evening to talk about the House's successful legislative efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) to talk about the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for his thoughts.

Mr. Speaker, when we learned that Planned Parenthood was selling the tissue of unborn children, America was outraged. Since then, the House has redoubled its effort to pass legislation to protect the unborn.

H.R. 7 and H.R. 36 are two important pro-life measures that have passed the House.

H.R. 36, which would prevent the killing of unborn children who are developed enough to feel pain, passed the House by 237 votes. This legislation has been sitting in the Senate for 31 days.

H.R. 7, which prohibits taxpayer funding for abortion, passed the House by 238 votes. This legislation has been sitting in the Senate for 283 days.

I would like to welcome my friend and colleague from Georgia, Representative Jody Hice, to talk about these two important bills and protecting unborn children. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia for his passionate defense of life.

Mr. Speaker, Americans should be able to go about their daily lives without the fear of nuclear or radiological attack.

Representative Dan Donovan's Securing the Cities Act helps equip our cities to deal with these dangerous weapons, providing training and detection resources.

On January 31, the House agreed by voice vote to this commonsense legislation. For some reason, the Senate has failed in the last 276 days to move this bill.

I am proud to have the bill's sponsor, as well as m friend and colleague, Dan Donovan, here to share more about this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Donovan.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, a fellow prosecutor and a passionate advocate for these issues, for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, in the summer of 2015, 32-year-old Kate Steinle was gunned down by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times already.

Kate's Law, introduced by Chairman Bob Goodlatte, would enhance the penalties on illegal immigrant felons who are deported and then returned unlawfully to the United States.

This legislation passed the House with 257 votes, a bipartisan coalition of Members who simply want to keep violent felons out of the United States. This bill has been stuck in the Senate for 127 days.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend and colleague, Representative Andy Biggs, to talk about H.R. 3004, Kate's Law, and the importance of securing our Nation from violent illegal felons.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Arizona for his insight, and I appreciate his comments here tonight.

Mr. Speaker, in 2010, President Obama and Congress passed the Dodd- Frank legislation that attempted to reform Wall Street and end the too- big-to-fail problem. But instead of fixing the financial industry, Dodd-Frank was mainly served to excessively regulate local community banks, making it harder for individuals on Main Street to gain access to credit.

The Financial CHOICE Act, sponsored by Chairman Jeb Hensarling from the Financial Services Committee, replaced Dodd-Frank with a system that holds Wall Street accountable, while also making credit more accessible for Main Street America. The bill passed the House with 233 votes. It has been stuck in the Senate for 148 days.

I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney), my friend and colleague, who sits on the Financial Services Committee, to talk about H.R. 10, the Financial CHOICE Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia for his services on the Financial Services Committee, a demanding committee and a committee that he has certainly shown his brilliance on. So we appreciate his work very much.

Mr. Speaker, with rising premiums and sky-high deductibles, Americans are hurting under ObamaCare. Republicans talk a lot about increasing competition in the healthcare market, and this next bill actually makes that talk a reality.

H.R. 372, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act restores Federal antitrust laws to the health insurance industry, ensuring that the market for health insurance remains competitive and affordable for Americans.

On March 22, the House passed this legislation in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion, and 416 Members voted for it. It is 226 days later, and the Senate can still not move that legislation through its Chamber.

I yield to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), to say a few words about this bill that he sponsored.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Arizona, especially with his healthcare background. I know he has said on many occasions that he is a dentist impersonating a Congressman. Right now I feel the same way as a prosecutor impersonating a Congressman, and I appreciate his friendship and great insight.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to now invite my friend and colleague, Representative Ted Poe, to speak about the Email Privacy Act. This legislation clears up a loophole in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, or ECPA, that allows the government, after a certain amount of time, to search someone's email if it is held on a third- party server.

The ECPA was passed in 1986. For the past 30 years, our technology has drastically advanced, but our electronic communications policy has been stuck in the 1980s. The Email Privacy Act allows the law to catch up with the tech. This bill simply requires the government to have a warrant if they are going to search your email.

This legislation passed on voice vote. After 269 days, the bill still sits in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I yield to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), to speak about this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his hard work and persistence on this very important issue.

Mr. Speaker, this year, the House completed all 12 appropriations bills. It is the first time in decades that that has happened. I am proud that our Chamber worked hard to return to a regular appropriations process, and I can tell you that there were many late nights spent looking through amendment after amendment both in the Rules Committee hearing room and on the House floor. We thoughtfully considered these bills and offered them for votes on the House floor.

But the Senate hasn't approved any of these 12 bills. Not one. Republicans, month by month, crisis to crisis, were appropriating of the Obama administration era. But now Republicans are in charge, and without Senate action, we are staring down the barrel of another omnibus or continuing resolution. This isn't fair to the American public.

The Founders gave to Congress the power of the purse so that 435 men and women in this Chamber and 100 men and women in the Senate Chamber can spend weeks at a time thoughtfully discerning how to spend taxpayer dollars. That is our job. The House has finished its work for this year, and now we beg the Senate to finish theirs.

The House has done good work. We have listened to our constituents, worked with our stakeholders, and met each other in the middle on many bills. Now we are left just talking about these great bills because they are all stuck in the Senate.

I want to take a minute in closing to remind the Senate why we are here and why the voters offered the Republican Party control of both Chambers and the House.

We are here because Americans want fewer regulations. We are here because Americans want lower healthcare premiums and costs. We are here because Americans want a stronger stance against the world's bullies. We are here because Americans want a respect for the rule of law. We are here because Americans want our veterans to have the best care. We are here because Americans want better access to credit. They want to protect unborn life. We are here because Americans expect us to improve their lives, to work on meaningful legislation that limits government, that stewards taxpayer dollars effectively, and that guards family values.

Americans should know that the House of Representatives has heard them. We have passed bills to address these concerns. Now we turn to the Senate and ask them to do the same.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to speak about my amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Division of H.R. 3354.

Mr. Chair, the right to bear arms is ingrained in our nation's founding. These rights are given to us by God and guaranteed by the Constitution.

But for many Americans, this right has been forfeited. And their only option for recourse has been taken away.

When I was District Attorney in Northern Colorado I met a man who told me that when he was in college he bounced a check to his landlord. He pleaded guilty to a felony.

Since that day, he has been a model citizen. He finished college. He worked hard and raised a family.

This man made a mistake that is still haunting him nearly 40 years later. He wants to take his grandchildren hunting. But he can't possess a firearm because he made a mistake in his youth.

The worst part of this situation is that the law allows the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to consider petitions to restore this man's right to possess a firearm.

However, for 25 years, the underlying bill has included a provision authored by then-Rep. Schumer prohibiting ATF from processing these applications.

America is a land of second chances. We restore civil rights for those who have made mistakes in their past, including the right to vote in many states. We help our neighbors find employment after incarceration.

Why should non-violent individuals who made a mistake in their past be prohibited from having their case heard?

This amendment simply seeks to remove a 25-year-old ban on the ATF's legal function to hear petitions from non-violent individuals like the man I mentioned earlier.

To be clear, my amendment would not act as a rubber stamp on every application. The ATF must weigh the merits of each individual case.

The burden is on the applicant to prove that he or she is nonviolent and does not pose a threat to the community.

Any American who can prove to ATF they do not pose a danger to society should be allowed to state their case. They should be allowed to advocate for their rights.

It is about time that we give these individuals that opportunity again.

Mr. Chair, my amendment is simple. It would give nonviolent individuals who made a mistake in their past the opportunity for a second chance.

It would allow a grandfather the opportunity to take his grandchildren hunting and provide a way for a mother to protect her home.

To be clear, this amendment does not guarantee that an applicant will have their rights restored. But it does give them hope, a chance to once again possess their Second Amendment rights.

After all, America is the land of second chances.

I thank the Chairman and urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak about my amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies division of H.R. 3354.

Mr. Chairman, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, or SCAAP, is intended to further local law enforcement's ability to adhere to Federal immigration law. SCAAP provides States and localities with Federal funds to help offset correctional costs related to incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens with at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions.

However, in recent years, the number of jurisdictions receiving SCAAP funding that have adopted sanctuary policies, allowing violent criminal aliens to go free, has skyrocketed. My amendment would cut off SCAAP money for cities that violate the intent of these funds. These sanctuary cities must not continue using taxpayer money to flagrantly violate Federal immigration law and put American citizens at risk.

Look no further than my home State of Colorado in the case of Mr. Ever Valles. Back in October, Mr. Valles was picked up on charges, including possession of a weapon, vehicle theft, and eluding. He also had a history of gang involvement.

ICE placed a detainer on Mr. Valles, but Denver officials failed to honor the Federal detainer, releasing him without providing the proper notice to ICE officials. Upon his release, Mr. Valles took part in robbing and shooting 32-year-old Tim Cruz at an RTD train station. He has been charged with first-degree murder.

Sanctuary policies just don't break the law. They place people's lives in danger. We cannot continue allowing these jurisdiction sanctuary cities to use taxpayer money to further these misguided policies. In fact, the Office of Justice Programs' own website states that applicants for SCAAP funds are required to certify compliance with all applicable Federal laws at the time of application. It goes on to say that, if the OJP receives information indicating that an applicant violated the statute related to sanctuary policies, that the applicant will be investigated by the inspector general and could be subject to criminal and civil penalties.

A recent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency report identified the top 10 jurisdictions with the highest volume of detainers issued that restrict cooperation with ICE. Not surprisingly, every one of those sanctuary cities received SCAAP awards in fiscal year 2016.

Mr. Chairman, sanctuary cities stand against the rule of law. These jurisdictions support illegal immigration and allow individuals who violate the law to remain free. We cannot allow these jurisdictions to continue these harmful policies on the American people's dime. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have left.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I would just ask my colleagues to support my amendment, and I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Hensel Phelps Construction Company for receiving the 2017 Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award. This prestigious award is given to only a handful of firms out of over 3,000 applicants in order to recognize their support of National Guard and Reserve employees. This is truly a remarkable achievement that speaks to Hensel Phelps' care for our service members.

Hensel Phelps is a thriving, international corporation that was founded in Greeley, Colorado in 1937. Over the last 80 years, this company has grown from a local commercial construction company to the prosperous international business it is today. They have created thousands of jobs and have made notable contributions to improve the communities around their operations, as well as their employees' livelihoods.

Hensel Phelps is an excellent example of what enterprising and forward thinking businesses can accomplish in America's great economy. As a former executive there, I have experienced firsthand what a remarkable company it is. The skills I learned and experiences I had while at Hensel Phelps still help me to this day as I work to represent the people of Colorado's fourth district. The care given to their staff is exceptional, and they should be commended for their innovative spirit, employee ownership model, and commitment to supporting our troops. Hensel Phelps' inspiring success confirms that the American Dream is alive and thriving in Colorado and the United States.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to recognize Hensel Phelps Construction Company for receiving the 2017 Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service and sacrifice made by Marine Corporal David Sonka.

Corporal David Sonka was a devoted son, husband, and Marine. He grew up in Parker, Colorado and knew at a young age he wanted to serve his country. Corporal Sonka enlisted in the United States Marine Corps immediately following his high school graduation in 2008. He completed Military Police school, K9 School, and in 2012 was selected to become a dog handler for the Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC) at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina where he was paired with his faithful canine companion, Flex.

On March 31, 2013, Corporal Sonka and Flex were deployed with Marine Special Operations Team 8223 to Farah Province, Afghanistan. While on watch during a meeting between Afghan military personnel and Marine Special Operations Forces on May 4, 2013, an Afghan soldier opened fire and fatally injured both Corporal Sonka and Flex. Corporal Sonka has since been recognized for his bravery and sacrifice. He received a Combat Action Ribbon, the Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, the Marine Corps Achievement Medal, and the Purple Heart. Additionally, the town of Parker, Colorado named their dog park after Corporal Sonka as did the MARSOC K9 Training Facility in Camp Lejeune.

Our nation owes no greater debt of gratitude than the one we owe our veterans. It is the heroic bravery and incredible sacrifices made by individuals like Corporal Sonka that have helped secure the freedoms that we as Americans hold dear. On behalf of the 4th Congressional District of Colorado, I extend my deepest gratitude to Corporal Sonka for his service and sacrifice for our nation.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to recognize Marine Corporal David Sonka for his sacrifice in defending the United States of America.