Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 240 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 rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. Americans have always been a people known for taking ownership. We take ownership of our lives and livelihoods, working hard to provide for our families. We take ownership in our communities, setting standards of conduct. We take ownership in all our political process, voting for the right candidates. We have even taken ownership in our world, fighting evil actors and regimes to maintain peace.

H.R. 1343, the bill we are discussing today, allows employees to take ownership in their companies. This is the American way.

Under SEC rule 701, private companies can offer their own securities to employees, enabling those employees to take a stake in the company. This is a great deal for both businessowners and employees. I doubt either side of the aisle would disagree.

Rule 701 allows employers to better recruit talented employees and pay them without having to borrow money or sell securities. For some companies, especially younger ones, compensating employees through equity is vital for survival.

These younger companies need the top talent but often can't pay the top salaries. Rule 701 allows them to offer potential recruits a tradeoff: accept a lower salary now for more equity in the company later.

By giving the employees a stake in the company, businessowners reward the employees for their continued hard

work and innovation. Workers have an opportunity to buy into the mission and future of the company. They have the opportunity to reap what they sow, making their work more meaningful and fulfilling.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1343 simply raises the reporting threshold for companies who issue securities to their employees as compensatory benefits. Right now, any company that issues more than $5 million of securities in a yearlong period faces significant reporting requirements, including financial statements and disclosure of risk factors. These requirements cost small businesses time and money, making them less likely to issue stock as compensation for their employees. That is why this legislation moves the threshold up to $10 million.

The original $5 million threshold was added to rule 701 in 1999 and hasn't been updated since. By easing the threshold and indexing it to inflation every 5 years, we allow companies to increase the amount of stock they offer to employees. Additionally, raising the threshold will prevent private companies from having to disclose confidential financial information.

America is known for taking ownership, but we are also known for innovation. Our technology industry, especially, has propelled our economy and quality of life forward. But so many great tech companies started as small startups, struggling along from month to month before the financial rewards of their hard work could be achieved.

Thinking about the young companies right now that have grand innovative visions for improving our quality of life, this legislation will help them thrive. The employees already pour so much of their livelihoods into the venture. This bill will reward those workers with equity so that their perseverance and investment will pay off.

Mr. Speaker, before I close, I would like to discuss the broad support for this bill. I indicated earlier that both sides of the aisle can support this legislation, and I want to highlight that bipartisan support for the bill.

H.R. 1343 has equal numbers of Republican and Democratic sponsors. Further, the bill passed out of the Financial Services Committee 48-11. A majority of the Democrats on the committee supported the bill. A similar bill passed with a bipartisan vote last Congress, with more than two dozen Democrats joining Republicans to pass the bill. And in the Senate, this same basic proposal passed the Senate Banking Committee by a voice vote just a few weeks ago.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to see why this proposal is generating so much bipartisan support. With a higher threshold, companies can focus their time on innovating and creating jobs instead of filling out paperwork. Employees, meanwhile, can take a stake in their company and their own future. I urge my colleagues to vote for this important rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond briefly to my friend from Colorado's comments about the nature of the rule. The Rules Committee did make in order every single germane rule that was offered to this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we often talk about coming together in support of good policy. We all have friends on both sides of the aisle, and we routinely promise to work together on issues upon which we agree. Most of us speak in front of our constituents about our desire to work with the other party. However, we all know that Americans perceive us to be constantly engaged in partisan conflict.

It is unfortunate that we are not able to work together on good legislation more often. It is understandable that Americans feel disappointed by Washington's partisan sniping. But here before us today is a bill with wide bipartisan support. Not only has it already received numerous bipartisan votes, there were only two amendments offered to the bill. One amendment was withdrawn because it was not germane. The other amendment from my good friend from Colorado and the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis, is simply requiring a report.

Why is this bill so noncontroversial?

I believe it has to do with the process by which we received this legislation. The Committee on Financial Services held hearings as far back as 2015 in which problems with the SEC rule were raised by small- business owners.

The sponsor of this bill, Mr. Hultgren, worked with his Democratic

colleagues on the committee and introduced a proposal to reform the SEC rule. Chairman Hensarling held a full committee markup last month which allowed for full debate and amendment, and now we have the bill on the floor this week. Good process produces good policy. But perhaps equally as important, good process helps instill faith in this institution. When Americans see us take up an issue, hear their concerns, and work together to find a commonsense solution, they will trust us to tackle even bigger problems.

This may not be the largest legislative product that Chairman Hensarling and the Financial Services Committee produce in this Congress, but, nevertheless, it is an important work that is helping us solve problems faced by American small businesses. This legislation ensures that the employees of America's small businesses can take ownership in their companies and their jobs. It reduces regulatory encroachment on America's job creators and helps our small businesses expand and grow.

I thank Representative Hultgren for bringing this bill before us. I commend Chairman Hensarling for working with both sides of the aisle and for following a good process on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and vote ``yes'' on the bill.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), my friend and colleague.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 198 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), 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.

Our veterans have paid a high price. Dispatched to foreign lands to fight for our freedom, many returned injured, grief-stricken over lost friends, and torn apart by the violence of war.

We owe them our time, our energy, our gratitude, and our protection. That is why we are here on the floor today: to protect the constitutional rights of our heroes and to make sure we are taking care of them like we promised we would.

H.R. 1181, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, ensures that government cannot strip our heroes of their constitutional rights without due process. Under current law, if the VA determines that a veteran needs a guardian or fiduciary to help manage their benefits, then that veteran's name must be sent to the NICS database, prohibiting them from purchasing a firearm.

The decision to strip any constitutional right from anyone, most importantly our veterans who have put their lives on the line to defend our Constitution, needs to be made with due process. The VA was never designed to adjudicate the removal of constitutional rights. This decision should be made by a judge or judicial authority.

Instead of stripping veterans of constitutional rights, our VA should be focused on protecting veterans. That is exactly what the other two bills under consideration do.

H.R. 1259 gives the Department of Veterans Affairs greater ability to discipline employees for misconduct or poor performance.

We entrust our VA employees with the health and well-being of our veterans. Most of these employees do a great job, working hard to make sure our heroes are cared for; but, occasionally, a VA employee engages in misconduct, behavior that can endanger the very lives of our veterans.

These men and women sacrificed to serve our Nation. The least we can do is enable them to receive the best care possible at the VA. That is why we need H.R. 1259, to allow the VA, under an expedited process, to fire or suspend or demote employees who are putting our veterans at risk.

The legislation also allows the VA to recoup the money paid in bonuses or relocation grants to employees convicted of a felony.

Mr. Speaker, our veterans deserve the best. They deserve the best employees. They deserve the best medical staff. That is what the third bill under consideration, H.R. 1367, will achieve. This legislation improves the VA's ability to recruit the best medical staff, offering the agency direct hiring authority to fill key positions with critical staffing needs.

It also creates a fellowship program to train up VA management for the best performance. It is time to improve the personnel practices at the Veterans Administration.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution on the floor today is vital for our Nation's veterans. Their constitutional rights and their well-being stand in the balance.

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

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

My friend from Florida and I were in committee yesterday and heard testimony from one of our colleagues that this bill, as it pertains to veterans' gun rights, is not reactive. It does not go back to those individuals who have been denied their due process rights, who have been denied their Second Amendment rights.

This bill is prospective only. It will only affect those who in the future have been denied those rights. And I think it is absolutely important that we understand the Republican Party in the House of Representatives is committed to make sure that those individuals who have been denied their due process rights, their Second Amendment rights in the past, we will find a solution. We will help those individuals.

Right now, we are focused on making sure that others have the ability to a fair, open hearing where they can present their side of the story before they are denied their constitutional rights.

My friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Hastings) also talks about the fact that H.R. 1259 will do more harm than good; that somehow disciplining those who are delivering poor services to our veterans is unfair to unions. The truth is that 35 percent of the VA's workforce is made up of veterans.

But the fact is that veteran employees believe employees that are not meeting acceptable standards for their fellow veterans should be removed, period, regardless of their service while on Active Duty.

Are opponents of removing poor-performing employees and those whose misconduct warrant removal saying that a veteran employee who cannot do the job or is guilty of misconduct be kept on the job?

On the contrary, veterans know that the strictest accountability standards apply to them during their military service, and millions of hardworking Americans in the private sector do not enjoy anything close to the protections enjoyed by Federal employees.

The only employees who need to be concerned with reasonable reform that would be made by this legislation are those who aren't doing their jobs on behalf of the veterans who they serve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

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

My friend from Florida talked about the specificity that he used in describing the conditions of these veterans, but that is not what the rule says.

What the rule says, Mr. Speaker, is that if someone--if a veteran needs a fiduciary, they will be denied the ability to own, possess, purchase a firearm. It doesn't say if they are schizophrenic. It doesn't say if they have PTSD. It doesn't say if they have depression, and if they have PTSD or depression that is somehow linked to further violent behavior. It doesn't say that.

What it says is, if you can't balance your bank account, you can't have a gun to protect yourself. There is no relationship between those two.

Now, if the gentleman from Florida would go to the Veterans Administration and talk to them about the need to link that finding of a fiduciary with future violent behavior, we may not be here today.

But so many people have been trapped in this overbroad rule that we are going to make sure that those people that have a fiduciary and are listed by the VA have a due process right to show that they are nonviolent; that they don't have a propensity to commit a crime with a weapon; that they are not a harm to themselves or to others.

And if the VA or an independent judicial officer finds that they are, then yes, list them on the NICS report, but give them that due process right. That is where the majority believes this rule created during the Clinton administration and by the Veterans Administration falls.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention and the attention of my colleague from Florida to a letter dated January 26, 2017, from the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Representative Roe, and the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. Senate, Chairman Isakson, to the President in which they asked for various positions to be exempted from the President's executive order concerning a hiring freeze.

The next day, January 27, the Acting Secretary issued a memorandum under the authority of that Presidential memorandum, executive order, granting the chairman's request and exempting various positions.

I would exceed my time limitations, Mr. Speaker, if I were to read all of these. But let me assure you there are dozens and dozens of positions at the Veterans Administration that have been exempted from the President's hiring freeze. They include social worker, science lab technician, practical nurse, nursing assistant, dietician, nutritionist, occupational therapist, on and on and on. And the need for the amendment that the gentleman presents is unnecessary.

I would also like to talk very briefly about the gentleman's argument that somehow those at the Veterans Administration are being harmed, and we are attacking a union in some way rather than trying to deal with real situations and improving the quality of care at the VA.

I want to give a few examples of VA employees and just the time that it took to remove people. A VA employee was a willing participant in an armed robbery several years ago, and after a lengthy legal and administrative battle where the employee was supported by the Public Employees Union, the employee was reinstated in their previous position without any discipline.

A VA nurse showed up to work intoxicated and participated in a veteran's surgery while under the influence of alcohol. Although the employee eventually resigned, to date, no other employees were disciplined for allowing the employee to participate in the veteran's surgery.

In 2013, a vocational rehab specialist out of the Central Alabama Veterans Health Care System crashed a government car, and a passenger ended up dying. He was later indicted for a DUI. The VA confirmed that the employee was not removed from payroll until January of this year-- almost 4 years.

In 2014, a VA employee at the Central Alabama Veterans Health Care System took a veteran who was a recovering drug addict to a crack house where he purchased illegal drugs for the veteran, as well as purchased a prostitute for him, though the employee was still employed at the VA well over a year later after the incident until they were finally able to remove him.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to stand up now for our veterans. They have performed their duty, and it is time for us to perform for them.

Our duty is to take care of them. A ``yes'' vote restores their Constitutional rights and improves their quality of care.

I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution, vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill. I thank Chairman Roe and Representative Wenstrup for bringing these bills before us.

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 175 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. Current Federal court rules allow trial lawyers to engage in picking their preferred venue. In particular, trial lawyers are able to file suit against the defendant in one State while keeping their case in a different State's court.

When a lawsuit is filed against a defendant in another State, trial lawyers may also sue a defendant in the State where they want the trial to occur. This keeps the case in the lawyers' preferred State court.

Many times the target of the lawsuit is a large, national business. But if the only defendant in the case is an out-of-State business, then the case can be heard in Federal court. Because of this, the trial lawyer will then also sue an innocent local individual or a small business in order to keep the case before a local court.

Usually, the case against the innocent local defendant is dropped once the case is safely back in State court, but it is dropped only after the innocent local defendant has spent time and money dealing with the lawsuit.

This practice is wrong. This practice perverts our justice system and causes needless pain. Trial lawyers should not have the power to subject innocent local individuals and small businesses to costly and time-consuming lawsuits just to rig the system. This kind of abuse of litigation is unjust and must be stopped.

A well-respected Federal appeals court judge, J. Harvie Wilkinson of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, has publicly supported Congress putting an end to this abuse. He has suggested that Congress provide judges greater leeway in making the proper decision on whether a case should be removed to Federal court. He has also suggested that Congress give Federal judges greater discretion to determine early on in a case whether a local party has been fraudulently sued. The Innocent Party Protection Act provides these exact changes.

In 2014 Judge Wilkinson addressed these proposals and said:

That is exactly the kind of approach to Federal

jurisdiction reform that I like because it is targeted.

And there is a problem with fraudulent jurisdiction law as

it exists today, I think, and that is that you have to

establish that the joinder of a nondiverse local defendant is

totally ridiculous and that there is no possibility of ever

recovering.

That is very hard to do.

So Judge Wilkinson went on:

So I think making the fraudulent joinder law a little bit

more realistic appeals to me because it seems to me the kind

of intermediate step that addresses some real problems.

The legislation that this rule makes in order is the solution to the problem that Judge Wilkinson identifies. The underlying legislation would protect innocent local defendants in two main ways. First, the Innocent Party Protection Act allows Federal judges more leeway when determining whether a defendant has been fraudulently joined to a lawsuit for the purpose of keeping the case out of Federal court.

When a judge has a case before his or her court, the judge will have clear guidelines for determining whether the locality of a defendant can be disregarded in establishing whether the case will proceed in Federal or State court. However, this in no way infringes on our State court systems.

The judge must conclude that the defendant will not face a liability under applicable State law. Once that conclusion is reached, the judge then may release the innocent defendant from the case. This provision keeps legal claims in Federal Court that properly belong there by allowing Federal judges to decide whether a local party is truly a legitimate defendant and not simply ensnared in a case for the sole purpose of keeping the case in a trial lawyer-friendly State court. This is a fair and efficient solution to the problem.

Secondly, the Innocent Party Protection Act establishes a uniform approach for evaluating whether a plaintiff has a good-faith intention of seeking judgment against a local defendant.

While the U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized the right of courts to consider whether a plaintiff has a good-faith intention of seeking a judgment against a local defendant, the application of this principle has not been uniform.

The Innocent Party Protection Act simply codifies this longstanding principle and permits Federal judges to limit a lawsuit to the appropriate defendant.

Plaintiffs with legitimate claims against both a local and out-of- State defendant will be able to pursue their case in State court. However, if no legitimate claim exists, the out-of-State defendant will have the opportunity to have the case heard in a neutral forum. By codifying this principle, we effectively protect innocent individuals and small businesses from bad-faith litigation.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation is a fair solution to one type of frivolous litigation. I support this effort, and I thank Chairman Goodlatte and the Judiciary Committee for bringing this bill to the floor.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the gentleman from Florida that we are debating the special order of business from rules and that all comments must be relevant to the rule or the underlying bill.

This particular underlying bill has to do with a rule of civil procedure and fraudulent joinders. It does not have to do with the gentleman's healthcare replacement act or his thoughts on the healthcare replacement act, insurance executive's compensation, individual mandates, tax cuts for the rich, Russia, Iraq, although I did appreciate the gentleman's memories from law school the year that I was born.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

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

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

May I inquire how much time is remaining on my side?

Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) that I have no additional speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, the rule before the House today is simple. It provides for the consideration of the Innocent Party Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, we often speak of the Federal regulations or taxes inhibiting job growth in our country, but there are other headwinds that our Nation's job creators face as well. One of those headwinds is frivolous litigation.

I believe strongly that anyone and everyone should have access to justice. Everyone who is injured deserves to have their day in court, and they should have the opportunity to make their case. However, sometimes trial lawyers take advantage of our justice system and seek to gain an unfair advantage against a defendant. Trial lawyers may try to go court shopping in order to rig the case against the defendant.

One way they may seek to secure their preferred venue is to sue a perfectly innocent individual or a small business who happens to reside in the jurisdiction within which the trial lawyer desires to pursue the case. After some time, the innocent party is often released from the litigation, but not before incurring legal costs as well as emotional and opportunity costs. Each time an innocent small-business man or woman has to divert their attention from growing their business and divert resources away from investing in their employees and creating jobs and divert energy away from expanding their involvement in our communities, and instead they are forced to direct their attention toward defending themselves from a frivolous legal claim, each time this happens is a missed opportunity for creating jobs and for realizing economic growth.

The Innocent Party Protection Act defends our small-business men and women from bad faith lawsuits. It provides relief from trial lawyers who seek out friendly courts in order to pursue their cases. It balances the needs of justice with proper restraints on decidedly unjust actions. The Innocent Party Protection Act is a good and equitable solution. I ask my colleagues in the House to support our local businesses and defend them against frivolous lawsuits. Vote ``yes'' on the resolution. Vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill. Rein in this abuse of our justice system. I thank Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Sessions for bringing this bill before us.

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

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 11th of last year, Honor Flight Northern Colorado held its 17th Honor Flight that gave many of our courageous veterans this extraordinary opportunity. I am pleased to recognize the Honor Flight on September 11, 2016, 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: Fredric Arnold, Gene Bennett, C.H. Clark, Lillian Crosley, Raymond Dickey, Darwin Dixon James Edmisten, Jimmie Godsey, Louis Hamman, Delbert Haynes, John Hess, Robert Horton, Dolores Kochheiser, Harry Maroncelli, Elmer McGinty, Frank Occhiuto, Robert Schueneman, Raymond Valadez, William VanBeber, William Way.

Korean War: Richard Bernhardt, Harold Bohm, Lee Boylan, George Brandt, Casper Brixius, James Comer Jr., Russell Daniels, Ralph Darrough, Ross DeBey, Garold Fox, S. Gilbert Garcia, Ronald Gillman, William Harrison, Virgil Hecker, Allan Hedberg, Dennis Lance, Gordon Leben, Albert Lowe, Jimmy Martin, Francis McKenna Jr., Ernest Medialdea, James Montgomery, Delmer Moss, James Petrie, William Pool, Carroll Quick, Robert Ray, Kennedy Roode, Al Schott, William Sherman, James Shuey, Donald Trettenero, Herbert Wenger, Eugene Ziehm.

Vietnam War: Roy Armstrong, Wilbur Boegli, Cary Bott, Thurman Bradley, Claude Buehrle, Robert Bullard, John Carpenter, Terrence Carroll, Robert Cofone, Larry Coldren, Paul Conley, Byron Daniels, Robert Davis, Mark DeDecker, Michael Doherty, Gary Dorsey, Mark Drake, Dale Eggleston, Jerry Eldred, Gary Ellerman, Daniel Ferguson, William Fisher, Roy Friesen, Glenn Fulcher, Glenn Gaines, Jerry Graham, Paul Graves, Dwight Gutsche, Percey Hamilton II, Christopher Harris, Robert Hawkey, William Hellyer, Thomas James, Norman Kegerries, Michael Krier, LeRoy Lawson, Harold Lif, Peter Lister, Jimmy Lofink, William Margheim, Dallas Maurer, Kevin McGrath, Richard Miller Jr., David Naylor, Wesley Nelson, Richard Norris, Larry Perkins, Robert Randall, Danny Robinett, Robert Rutz, Robert Schrader, Billy Schwindt, Jackie Scott, David Sellers, David Shigley, Tommy Silva, Kenneth Skoglund, Darrell Smith, John Smith, Farrell Spencer, Edward Stephens, Stanley Suichta, Martin Treml, Kerry Tyler, Linda Tyler, Daryl Vande Hoef, Thomas White, Terry Willert, John Young.

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. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment empowers State, local, and tribal governments by ensuring they have a say in the regulatory process.

H.R. 1009 already codifies and improves upon the practices of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. My amendment strengthens the language even further, requiring OIRA to hold Federal agencies accountable for coordinating and consulting with State, local, and tribal governments before issuing new regulations. In other words, we are giving governors, local officials, and tribal leaders a say in the regulations that affect them. These local officials know what their communities need much better than the bureaucrats in Washington.

Unfortunately, our Federal agencies have a habit of issuing regulations and policies without consulting local and State governments. For example, we just need to look at the EPA waters of the United States rule.

Historically, States have had significant authority over water management. Governors have worked with local and tribal leaders to set up their own laws and regulations to ensure that water is properly allocated, that water meets certain quality standards, and that water in their State is protected from misuse.

The EPA's WOTUS rule is excessive and burdensome because they disregarded the role of the States in crafting waterway regulations. The agency held no substantive consultation with State governments prior to issuing the rule, despite States' historical roles in regulating their water supplies, despite the State-level experts who could have helped the EPA craft a better regulation, despite President Clinton's Executive Order 13132 ensuring that Federal agencies consult with State, local, and tribal officials before issuing a rule.

Federal officials never gave State, local, and tribal officials the opportunity to explain how their States were currently handling the situation and how this rule could negatively impact their jurisdictions. Since the EPA bureaucrats barreled ahead without State, local, or tribal input, they proposed an overreaching rule.

This amendment would require the EPA and other Federal agencies to account for how proposed rules will affect impacted States, localities, and tribes.

The amendment under consideration simply requires Washington to listen to and learn from local governments because local governments are closer to the people. And the people of this Nation should have a say in the rules and regulations that are affecting their livelihoods.

In closing, this amendment is simple. It ensures that regulatory agencies talk with State, local, and tribal leaders throughout the regulatory process.

I urge my colleagues in the House to support this.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Dale McCall on being inducted into the Colorado Agriculture Hall of Fame. This honor is reserved for those who have made a significant contribution to the agricultural industry of Colorado and the United States.

Dr. McCall has made a great impact on the agricultural industry throughout his life. He devoted 40 years to agricultural education after receiving his bachelors, masters, and Ph.D. degrees from Colorado State University. He has helped the next generation of agriculture producers through his roles as a teacher, Agricultural Education staff member, and even Executive Director of Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES).

Not only has Dr. McCall given his time to agricultural education, he also has first-hand experience working on the farm. He and his wife have grown a variety of crops including oats, wheat, and milo. He is the current president of the Rocky Mountain Farmer's Union and has received numerous awards for his various agriculture and educational achievements.

On behalf of the 4th Congressional District of Colorado, I extend my best wishes as Dr. McCall pursues his future endeavors. His passion and dedication to the agricultural industry makes him more than worthy of this distinct recognition. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to recognize Dr. Dale McCall for his accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Charles Bartlett on being posthumously inducted into the Colorado Agriculture Hall of Fame. This honor is reserved for those who have made a significant contribution to the agricultural industry of Colorado and the United States.

Mr. Bartlett made a substantial impact on the Colorado agriculture industry throughout his lifetime. He got his start at an early age, when he undertook a supervisory role on his family's farm when he was 20 years old. Dedicating his time to protecting Coloradan's water and agriculture, he became Chairman of the Colorado Water Conservation Board and cofounded First FarmBank and FarmBank Holding Company.

Mr. Bartlett maintained a commitment to education in his community. He served on several school boards including the Board of Cooperative Educational Services and the Buffalo School District Board of Education. He received numerous prestigious awards, including

the Colorado Corn Amicus Friend of Agriculture Award, throughout his lifetime for his many acts of public service. It is clear that he cared greatly about bettering his community through leadership and hard work.

On behalf of the 4th Congressional District of Colorado, I extend my best wishes to the family of Mr. Charles Bartlett. His passion and dedication to the agricultural industry makes him more than worthy of this distinct recognition. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to recognize Mr. Charles Bartlett for his accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Marc Arnusch on being selected as the 2016 Rising Star in Colorado Agriculture. This honor is reserved for those who have made a significant contribution to the agricultural industry of Colorado and the United States.

Mr. Arnusch has an extensive background in Colorado agriculture. After receiving a degree in Agricultural Economics, he returned home and began working the land adjacent to his father's farm. He now operates Marc Arnusch Farms, LLC which stretches across 2,400 acres in Prospect Valley. Mr. Arnusch is a member of the Colorado Corn Administrative Committee and the Colorado Farm Bureau, and has held various leadership roles within the Colorado Farm Bureau.

His attendance and participation in local forums, appearance in television commercials, and efforts on behalf of agriculture have helped make him a prominent figure in his community. He has become a powerful voice for agriculture in Colorado and I look forward to learning of his future endeavors.

On behalf of the 4th Congressional District of Colorado, I extend my best wishes as Mr. Arnusch pursues his future undertakings. His passion and dedication to the agricultural industry makes him more than worthy of this distinct recognition. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to recognize Mr. Marc Arnusch for his accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Bill Markham on being inducted into the Colorado Agriculture Hall of Fame. This honor is reserved for those who have made a significant contribution to the agricultural industry of Colorado and the United States.

Throughout his life, Mr. Markham has contributed to the agricultural industry. His dedication to educating the youth in Colorado about

the importance of agriculture inspired him to donate his time and resources to the Colorado Young Farmers Educational Association, serving as state president and national secretary. He was also a member of the Colorado Livestock Association and Colorado Corn Growers Association. Throughout the years, he has won various awards for his commitment to agriculture, and even appeared in a Coors television commercial.

Despite Mr. Markham's accomplishments within his community, he is most proud to hold the title farmer. Mr. Markham is the owner of M&M Farms, where he has spent countless days growing Rocky Mountain Barley for Coors Brewing Company.

On behalf of the 4th Congressional District of Colorado, I extend my best wishes to Mr. Bill Markham. His passion and dedication to the agricultural industry makes him more than worthy of this distinct recognition. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to recognize Mr. Bill Markham for his accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Bill Webster on being inducted into the Colorado Agriculture Hall of Fame. This honor is reserved for those who have made a significant contribution to the agricultural industry of Colorado and the United States.

Mr. Webster has had a tremendous impact on agriculture in Colorado. He started Webster Land and Cattle Company at a young age and managed the company for over thirty years. After his retirement, Mr. Webster served in the Colorado State Legislature and as the Weld County Commissioner at Large. He has continuously been a leader in his community, serving on multiple boards and participating in various organizations. Today he is involved in the Greeley Rotary Club, T-Bone Club, First Congregational Church, and the American Legion.

In addition to being a leader in his community, Mr. Webster served his country for two years in the United States Army. After his many years of public service, Mr. Webster returned to Colorado State University to complete his Bachelor of Science degree in Animal Science. Mr. Bill Webster has set an exceptional example of leadership and public service, and it is a great honor to call him a dear friend and my father-in-law.

On behalf of the 4th Congressional District of Colorado, I extend my best wishes to Mr. Bill Webster. His passion and dedication to the agricultural industry makes him more than worthy of this distinct recognition. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to recognize Mr. Bill Webster for his accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Robert Miller's retirement after a lifetime of service to the state of Colorado and the United States.

Bob Miller has dedicated his life to the pursuit of justice and order in our country. Bob received his Juris Doctor from the University of Colorado in 1965. He then worked 51 years in the legal profession as the first full-time District Attorney of Weld County, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado, and an equity partner at Perkins Coie LLP. In addition to his work in the legal profession, he also served our nation as a member of the United States Air Force.

Besides his incredibly successful career, Bob Miller is most proud to have raised his family in Greeley, Colorado. In fact, his fondest memory is of watching his son, now Assistant District Attorney of Weld County, succeed in cracking a horrendous murder cold case.

Though he is stepping down as a partner at Perkins Coie LLP, Mr. Miller will continue to serve the people in a consulting role with the firm. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to recognize Mr. Robert Miller for his accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 71 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 have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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

I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying resolutions.

Before us is a resolution of disapproval that restores constitutional rights and empowers individuals with disabilities. Many of us know someone who struggles with a disability. We know friends or family who have mental challenges. We know these people, and we know they deserve the same constitutional protections as everyone else.

That is why this resolution is so important. It ends discrimination against individuals with disabilities. It restores due process rights. It keeps the Social Security Administration focused on its duty.

Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration's last-minute regulation to strip disability benefit recipients of their constitutional rights is deeply troubling.

The regulation at hand declares that just because an individual needs assistance in managing their disability benefits, they are also unfit to own a firearm. But this kind of thinking is discriminatory, forcing those with disabilities to choose between their constitutional rights or their disability benefits turns back the clock on disability rights.

This regulation singles out a single constitutional right to strip away from a group of Americans. It doesn't make sense.

Why take away one right and not others? Why not also strip those citizens of the right to vote or the right to trial by jury or the right to free speech?

In this country, your rights can't be limited without due process, but this regulation limits a constitutional right and only offers the recourse of appeal after the decision has been made. When it is easier to have your rights stripped away than to have them restored, it means your due process rights have also died in the process.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution restores the due process rights of individuals with disabilities. This resolution also refocuses the Social Security Administration. The agency's job is to administer benefits to Americans, not adjudicate cases concerning constitutional rights.

Mr. Speaker, I am also worried that this regulation will divert precious Social Security Administration resources from vital agency tasks. We trust the agency to fulfill our commitments to seniors and those with disabilities. This regulation distracts from those sacred promises.

I thank Mr. Johnson and my colleagues for their hard work on this resolution. We need to pass it.

Mr. Speaker, we also need to pass the joint resolution of disapproval for the Dodd-Frank section 1504 regulation. This resolution restores competitiveness to American energy companies. It allows American companies to comply with foreign and domestic laws, and it protects American workers abroad.

Section 1504 of Dodd-Frank requires companies to report their payments to our government or foreign governments related to oil, natural gas, and mineral extraction. After reporting this to the SEC, the agency publishes these disclosures. This process is costly and unfair to American businesses.

By forcing disclosure of project-level sensitive business information, American energy companies will face a disadvantage against government-owned energy companies. Since government-owned companies control three-quarters of the world's oil supply, this regulation could drastically impair the competitiveness of American companies. And the actual cost of compliance limit, estimated by the American Petroleum Institute to take 217,000 employee hours over a 3-year period, would be devastating.

Section 1504 must also be rolled back because it might force American companies to break the law of foreign countries. Some foreign nations prohibit the very disclosure requirements

required by this SEC regulation. Our companies should not have to decide between following the rule of law here and following it abroad.

Finally, by forcing such detailed and specific disclosures to the public, section 1504 could make energy extraction sites prime targets for terrorists. Whether in the U.S. or abroad, we need to wisely protect American workers from terrorism and other threats.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution restores competitiveness to American companies, allowing them to contribute to the global energy economy in a safe, secure, and legal manner.

It is time for Congress to reassert its authority and fix this poorly implemented legislation.

I commend the work done by Representative Huizenga and my colleagues on this important resolution, and I urge its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate my colleague from Massachusetts raising the issue of a thoughtful process and whether this legislation was rushed to the floor.

I think it is worth noting that the original legislation, which this rule seeks to amend, became law in a time when my colleague was in the House and his party was in the majority. The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 was introduced in the House on June 11, 2007.

The bill was moved by Congressman Conyers under suspension of the rules and passed by the House on June 13, 2007. There was no markup in the Judiciary Committee. There was no meaningful debate on the floor. The bill was rammed through the House in 3 days without any thought to the potential consequences of its passage. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

I did not see others standing up to leadership at that point in time. In its implementation, we are seeing the consequences. They involve the stripping away of constitutional rights and due process rights. They involve the elimination of due process rights. They involve discrimination against individuals with disabilities.

As for the point that this rule that we are now debating somehow encourages corruption, the fact is that this regulation puts U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage to state-owned entities abroad that are not subject to SEC regulation.

Additionally, it costs hundreds of millions of dollars in compliance costs for U.S. businesses. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act already prohibits bribes to foreign governments to obtain or retain business. These are legitimate payments being made to foreign governments, the payments that we are discussing here, and we should still prosecute any corruption to the full extent of the law.

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

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

I am waiting for one. I do not have a speaker now, but the gentleman's eloquence would be welcome at this point and any way that the gentleman would like to inform us on important issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments before I close, and then I would like to recognize the chairman for additional comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for being here today and just reinforce some of what the chairman had to say.

As I travel Colorado, I hear from individuals of all walks of life about the regulatory burdens that they face, the burden that has been placed upon them by their own government and how those burdens have impeded their life, liberty, and certainly pursuit of happiness. Small- business owners who would not open their business today because of the change in the business climate find that their tax burden, their regulatory burden, and the attitude of Federal regulators is such that they would choose a different path had they had to do it all over again.

I talked to school administrators who are, again, facing a pile of paperwork to comply with school and nutrition requirements that have been promulgated by this previous administration.

I talk to veterans who have to wait on long, long lines and fill out ridiculous paperwork because the Veterans Administration is unable to recognize the necessity, the importance of what those veterans are trying to accomplish at the VA. I am deeply concerned about the regulations, and I am proud that my colleagues have decided to address some of these regulations in the way that they have. I appreciate the chairman standing up on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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

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

I thank the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Kentucky for their remarks, and I appreciate the insightful remarks from the gentleman from Massachusetts. I am troubled right now. I am struggling to remember--as the gentleman describes Russia with its terrible record on human rights, I am trying to remember exactly who it was who had the reset button with Vladimir Putin, and I don't think it was the Trump administration. I could be wrong.

Mr. Speaker, America has come so far in advancing the rights of those with disabilities. We have also fought long and hard to protect our constitutional rights. The rule before us achieves both of those ends. The Obama administration's last-ditch effort to strip constitutional rights from individuals with disabilities must not stand. We also cannot stand for regulations that place American companies at a disadvantage and place their workers at risk.

The rule before us will undo the costly and dangerous reporting requirements placed on America's energy companies operating abroad. When we repeal this unwise regulation on American energy companies, they can again fully contribute to the world's energy economy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule and the underlying measures.

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

``. . . they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.''

Section 2:

``The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''